Allowed

Vineet Mahendra Doshi and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2019APL/25/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed an application to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding Section 399 IPC offences after the parties settled amicably. The court directed the applicants to pay Rs.20,000 each to a charitable trust within four weeks for the order to take effect.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; applicants directed to pay Rs.20,000 each to Yashodhan Charitable Trust within four weeks.

Vineet Mahendra Doshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

APL-25/19.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2019

¶4

Vineet Mahendra Doshi & Anr. ..Applicants. Versus State of Maharashtra & Another. ..Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Kunal V. Phoole for the Applicants.

¶6

Mr. Deepak Thakare, PP with Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

Mr. Rakesh Dubey for Respondent No. 2.

¶8

Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. Date : March 27, 2019 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. This is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash and set aside the FIR bearing CR.No.294 of 2018 registered with Kandivali Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said FIR came to be registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 herein.

¶11

The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that pending investigation, with the help and intervention of friends and well-wishers, the parties have

1 / 3

patilsr

APL-25/19.

amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to the understanding arrived at between them, present application is filed for quashing the above FIR by consent of Respondent No.2.

¶16

Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 20^th February 2019. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit, he has stated that he does not wish to proceed further in the case against the Applicants and he has no objection to quash the subject FIR. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, he submitted that he has made the said affidavit on his own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. He has further confirmed that he has no objection for quashing the subject FIR initiated by her against the Applicants.

¶17

In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the subject FIR. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it would be appropriate to saddle the

2 / 3

patilsr

APL-25/19.

Applicants with the cost of Rs.20,000/- each, which shall be paid to “Yashodhan Charitable Trust”, Satara [having Registration No. 1895/Satara, Maharashtra], an institution that takes care of the mentally retarded and elderly people in the downtrodden society. For the quashment to take effect, the Applicants shall pay the said cost and produce the receipts thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, present application shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est . [Yashodan Charitable Trust : Account No.: 60245873355 IFSC Code : MAHB0000305].

¶22

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶23

3 / 3

¶24

patilsr

Vineet Mahendra Doshi and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Mahendra Doshi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharaja Retreat Chs Ltd. Thr K. v. Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Deepak Madhavrao Mankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhimraj Rohidas Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mehmood Iqrar Ahmed Shaikh @ Mehmood Iqrar Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda) and Anr.

Hritik Appasaheb Rupanar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.