Allowed

Pankaj Chodanker., v. Officer-in-Charge/Police Inspector, Mapusa Police Station, Mapusa and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Oct 2018WPCR/118/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed the writ petition to quash the FIR and Charge Sheet filed under Sections 504 and 325 IPC. The Court exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC citing the Supreme Court judgment in Madan Mohan Abbot, noting the parties had amicably settled the dispute after the petitioner apologized.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was allowed in terms of the amended prayer clause to quash the FIR and the Charge Sheet.

Pankaj Chodanker., Vs Officer-in-Charge/Police… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

 1 wpcr118-18dt25-10-18

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.118 OF 2018

¶4

Pankaj Chodanker.

¶5

 ….... Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

Officer-in-charge/Police Inspector
Mapusa Police Station & another. ..…. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ashwin D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent
No.1.

¶10

Mr. Shailesh Redkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

Petitioner present.

¶12

Respondent No.2 present.

¶13

Coram : N.M. Jamdar &
 Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
 Date : 25 October 2018.
P.C.:

¶14

 Leave to amend to add a prayer regarding quashing of
the Charge Sheet, granted. The amendment to be carried out
forthwith.

¶15

2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent
No.2-Complainant state that their respective clients are present
before the Court. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 have
amicably decided to settle their dispute. They tender a joint

¶16

 2 wpcr118-18dt25-10-18

¶17

statement signed by the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2. On
the basis of this joint statement, the Petitioner and Respondent
No.2 request that the FIR and the Charge-Sheet be quashed. We
are of the opinion that this request made is reasonable for the
following reasons.

¶18

3.The Petitioner is a junior practising Advocate. It
appears that on 22 December 2017 an altercation took place
between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 in the Court of Joint
Mamlatdar of Bardez, pursuant to which the Respondent No.2 filed
an FIR under Sections 504 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. This
Petition is filed for quashing of the FIR and the Charge-Sheet.

¶19

4.When the Petition came up for hearing, it was
adjourned from time to time at the request of the parties so that the
dispute could be settled. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner
states that the Petitioner has tendered apology to Respondent No.2
in the joint pursis as well as in the Court. Respondent No.2,
accepting this apology, has decided that the dispute needs to be put
in past and not to be aggravated further.

¶20

5.Considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab1, we are of the

¶21

1 (2008) 4 SCC 582

¶22

 3 wpcr118-18dt25-10-18

¶23

opinion that since the parties have decided to put an end to the
unfortunate misunderstanding and get on their lives, this a fit case
to exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and
set aside the FIR and the Charge-Sheet.

¶24

6.The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a), as amended.

¶25

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. N.M. Jamdar, J.

Pankaj Chodanker., v. Officer-in-Charge/Police Inspector, Mapusa Police Station, Mapusa and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Chodanker., v. Officer-in-Charge/Police Inspector, Mapusa Police Station, Mapusa 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

Smrutee S. Kamulkar and 7 Ors., Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Hirabai Kavlekar., Vs the Collector (North Goa) and 22 Ors.

Joao Martin Fernandes @ Martin Fernandes., Vs the Union of India, Thr. the Ministry of Defense and Anr.

Canara Bank, Sme Branch, Thr. Its Manager, Rep. by Arvind S. Naik., Vs Remediana D'Costa and 3 Ors.

Varsha Ashok Hirani Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Philcorp Holdings Ltd.