Allowed

Jayantilal Popatlal Shah and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2017WP/4093/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a prayer to quash an FIR based on cheating and forgery offences, the court held that the real dispute was civil regarding property title. Since an amicable settlement was reached via deed of rectification and confirmation, the court exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.76 of 2016 filed against the petitioners is quashed and set aside.

Jayantilal Popatlal Shah and Anr. Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2017)

crwp4093

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINALWRIT PETITION NO.4093 OF 2016

¶5

Jayantilal Popatlal Shah & Ors.
vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

...Petitioners

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Vivesh V. Purwant i/b Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the
Petitioners

¶10

Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for the respondent No.1
Mr.Sachin Deokar for respondent no.2

¶11

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
 DATE : MARCH 1, 2017

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1Rule. The learned counsel for the second
respondent waives service. The learned APP waives
service for the first respondent. Forthwith taken
up for final disposal.

¶14

2By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short Cr.PC), a
prayer is made for quashing the FIR registered at
the instance of the second respondent for the
offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, 471
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

3The prayer for quashing is made on the basis of
the amicable settlement. There is a reply filed by
the second respondent. The allegations in the FIR

¶16

2 crwp4093

¶17

show that the case of the second respondent was that
on the basis of the alleged forged documents, the
petitioners transferred the property subject matter
of the grievance to one Keshubhai by a registered
sale deed dated 26th March 2009. The allegation is
that the second respondent along with family members
are entitled to one half share. In the affidavit
of the second respondent it is stated that a deed of
rectification was subsequently executed for
correcting the area mentioned in the sale deed. In
view of the correction carried out and acceptance
thereof by the first petitioner and the purchaser of
the right, title and interest of the second
respondent and his family members, the second
respondent has stated that he has no objection for
quashing the FIR.

¶18

4We have perused the FIR. On the face of it, it
is clear that the real dispute between the parties
is as regards the title to the irremovable property.
As evidenced by the affidavit of the second
respondent as well as the deed of rectification and
confirmation executed by the first petitioner and
the purchaser, now there is a complete settlement
of the property dispute.

¶19

5Perusal of the allegations in the FIR show that
the case has predominently a civil flavour and in
fact on the basis of the facts alleged, the second
respondent ought not to have set criminal law in
motion. The second respondent has paid a Donation
of Rs.50,000/- to the Tata Memorial Centre and a

¶20

crwp4093

¶21

¶22

receipt there of is produced for our perusal.

¶23

6Considering the settlement of the dispute in
respect of the property, this is a fit case to
exercise the power under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973 for quashing the FIR.

¶24

7 Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶25

(I)Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:
“(a)this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and
set aside F.I.R.No.76 of 2016 filed by the
respondent No.2 against the petitioners with
Kinavali Police Station, Taluka Shahapur,
District Thane for the offence punishable u/s.
420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 of Indian Penal
Code.”

¶26

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)

Jayantilal Popatlal Shah and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayantilal Popatlal Shah and Anr. 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

Avtar Singh S/O. Dalip Singh Nagi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

National Sopt Exchange Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Hughes and Hughes Chem Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shree Ishan Kackar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Mr. Manishkumar Mahavir Singh Vs Mrs. Vanita Manish Sachar

Sachin Harish Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.