Allowed

Nilesh Nenshi Gala and Anr. v. Shakuntala Joshi and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2016WP/833/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR and a complaint filed between lawyers involved in a personal dispute after they reached an amicable settlement. The court also directed the withdrawal of a pending civil suit based on consent minutes, applying the Gian Singh precedent.

What did the court decide?

FIR C.R. No. 34 of 2016 under IPC Sections 379/406 quashed; Consents to withdraw R.A.D. Suit No. 49 of 2016 and quash MISE No. 39 of 2016 accepted; Writ petition disposed of.

Nilesh Nenshi Gala and Anr. Vs Shakuntala Joshi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

spb/

¶2

908wp833-16.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 833 OF 2016

¶5

Nilesh Nenshi Gala & Anr. … Petitioners.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Mrs. Shakuntala Joshi & Anr. … Respondents.

¶8

¶9

Mr. Arun Panickar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. G.S. Kulkarni a/w. Anand Poojari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND Ms.NUTAN D.SARDESSAI,JJ.

¶13

DATE : 25^th NOVEMBER, 2016 P.C. :

¶14

1 The Petitioners and Respondent No. 1 are lawyers. There was some dispute between them which gave rise to filing of civil as well as criminal proceedings. After we persuaded both the parties to reconsider and find out amicable settlement, we are happy to mention that finally they have now arrived at an amicable settlement.

¶15

2 The Petitioner had filed R.A.D. Suit No.49 of 2016 in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai and the Respondent had

1/3

Borey

spb/

908wp833-16.odt

filed Criminal Complaint vide C.R. No.34 of 2016. Today both the parties are personally present in the court. They have filed the consent the minutes of the order. The consent minutes are duly signed by them and also by their respective Advocates. The said consent minutes are taken on record and marked “X” for the purpose of identification.

¶21

3 We are satisfied that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the consent minutes, the FIR dated 11^th February, 2016 vide C.R.No.34 of 2016 which is filed for the offence punishable under sections 379 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed.

¶22

4 In para 3 of the consent minutes, the Petitioner No.1 has agreed that R.A.D. No. 49 of 2916 which is pending before the Hon'ble Small Causes Court, Mumbai, would also stand withdrawn. If this court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India finds that though RAD No. 49 of 2016 is not before us and is pending before the Small Causes Court, by virtue of the consent terms can issue direction that the said RAD Suit stands withdrawn.

2/3

Borey

908wp833-16.odt

spb/

5 We are informed that another complaint being MISE No. 39 of 2016 has been filed by the Petitioner in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates' 38^th Court at Ballard Pear, seeking an order under section 156 (3) of the Cr. P.C. is also quashed though inadvertently no reference has been made in the consent terms. Both the parties are present before the court and they agree with mutual consent that the said complaint shall also stand quashed.

¶28

6 In view of the above, the criminal writ petition is disposed of in terms of the consent minutes marked “X” . Muddemal articles may be disposed of.

¶29

(Ms.NUTAN D.SARDESSAI,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)

¶30

3/3

¶31

Borey

Nilesh Nenshi Gala and Anr. v. Shakuntala Joshi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Nenshi Gala and Anr. v. Shakuntala Joshi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohmmed Abad Islam Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rizwan Ismail Patni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rupesh Baburao Khatke Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Rameshwar Agrawal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Isha Ismail Baig and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Farooque Suleman Mansuri Vs the State of Maharashtra