Allowed

Bharat v. Khater and Ors. v the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2016WP/4769/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed to quash a criminal complaint registered against the petitioners for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The dispute was predominantly civil, amicably settled, and a family settlement deed was executed. The complainant had no objection to quashing the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, registered vide C.R. No. 396/2014, was quashed and set aside.

Bharat v. Khater and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP. 4769-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 4769 OF 2015

¶5

Bharat V. Khater & Ors. … Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

¶7

Ms. Gunjan Mangla, for the Petitioners. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. Amit Ghat, for Respondent No. 2.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2016

¶10

PC.

¶11

This petition is filed for quashing of the criminal complaint, filed by Respondent No. 2, which is registered vide C. R. No. 396/2014, by Khar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 456, 468, 471, 506 and 120(b) of the I. P. Code. Both the parties are related to each other. They have amicably settled the dispute and filed the consent terms. The consent terms are signed by the complainant (Respondent No. 2)

¶12

and the Petitioners, and their respective advocates. The dispute

¶13

1 / 2

¶14

WP. 4769-15

¶15

essentially predominatingly is of civil nature. Thereafter there was family settlement between the parties, and a Family Settlement Deed was executed by all the parties.

¶16

Both the parties have relied on a

¶17

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of – Gian Singh, Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Respondents [(2012) 10 Supreme Court

¶18

Cases 303] in which the Apex Court has held that if the Court is satisfied that the dispute is predominatingly of a civil nature, then the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and 482 of Cr. P. C. can quash such a complaint. The ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

¶19

We have perused the consent terms. Consent terms are taken on record. All the parties are present in the Court. The complainant has stated that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed and set aside. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

Sd/Sd/[Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶21

Vinayak Halemath

¶22

2 / 2

Bharat v. Khater and Ors. v the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat v. Khater and Ors. v the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatma Gandhi Mission Trust and Anr. Vs Sandeep Saradchandra Thakur and Ors.

Sandeep Shradchandra Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurav Vitthal Bhat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shashikant Jijaba Yelwande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Monika Christina John and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashish Madhukar Lade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.