Allowed

Parminder Singh Chandiok v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2017WP/1774/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition for quashing an FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC in a personal dispute settled between parties. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 payable to the Kirtikar Law Library.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; the FIR is quashed and set aside. Petitioners are directed to pay Rs. 10,000 costs to the Kirtikar Law Library.

Parminder Singh Chandiok Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 / 3 914-WP-1774-17.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1774 OF 2017

¶4

Parminder Singh Chandiok .... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶5

Mr.R.V. Pawaskar i/b. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶6

Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶7

Mr.Hitesh Vyas i/b. Yogendra Giri, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & A. S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 28^th JULY, 2017.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 and learned APP.

¶11

The petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing C.R.No.52/17, registered with Bangurnagar Police Station, Mumbai. The said FIR is registered against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.2 for the offences punishable u/s

¶12

Nesarikar

¶13

2 / 3 914-WP-1774-17.odt

¶14

354(a)(3) of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 67(a) of the Information & Technology Act, 2000.

¶15

Pending investigation, the parties to the petition have settled their dispute amicably and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, have approached this Court for quashing the FIR by consent. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 02/05/2017. In paragraph No.6, she has stated that she has no objection for quashing and setting aside the subject FIR.

¶16

The respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, she specifically stated that she has gone through the affidavit and has fully understood the contents thereof and has no objection, if the subject FIR is quashed and set aside. She also stated that she is giving no objection for quashing the subject FIR out of free will and without there being any pressure or coercion.

¶17

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In

¶18

3 / 3 914-WP-1774-17.odt

¶19

these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014 AIR SCW 2065), we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the FIR pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes.

¶20

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to the “Kirtikar Law Library” . The petitioners shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the criminal petition shall stand dismissed automatically, without further reference to the Court.

¶21

Subject to above, the criminal writ petition stands disposed off.

¶22

(A. S. GADKARI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Parminder Singh Chandiok v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parminder Singh Chandiok 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Adamali Patel and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nayyare Babar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Mohammed Saleha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs the Competent Authrotiy and Ors.

Atul Kirtikumar Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Rehman Ansari Vs Shehjad Behjad Shaikh and Ors.