Allowed

Rachana Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Jul 2019APL/302/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction quashed an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC regarding a delay in delivery of a car. The court noted that the parties had reached an amicable settlement with full payment made and consented to the quashment, applying the principle in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab that such personal discord cases lose their criminal ch

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing No. 315 of 2018 ( errata to text '237' and '302' in header) was quashed and set aside subject to payment of costs.

Rachana Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/3 76 APL 302-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.302 OF 2019

¶3

Ms.Rachana Sharma .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondents

¶4

Mr. Karansingh B. Rajput with Mr.Bhagatsingh for the applicant.

¶5

Mr. Satish Raut for respondent no.2.

¶6

CORAM: SHRI RANJIT MORE &

¶7

SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.

¶8

DATED : 2^nd JULY 2019

¶9

P.C:-

¶10

1 The applicant has approached this Court seeking quashment of the FIR bearing No. 237 of 2018 registered with Govandi Police Station on 29^th December 2018 at the instance of respondent no.2 Rahul Khandelwal. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶11

2 The applicant is the Managing Director of Hyundai showroom and the complainant had purchased a Hyundai Creta car from the said showroom and it was alleged in the complaint

¶12

Tilak

¶13

2/3 76 APL 302-19.doc

¶14

that he had paid the entire amount towards the car which he had booked. However, there was delay in delivery of the said car and this provoked to him to approach the police station.

¶15

Pending investigation into the said crime, parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and accordingly, the complainant/respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit dated 29^th March 2019. In the said affidavit, it is stated by the respondent no.2 that the total outstanding amount of Rs.9,50,000/- has already been paid to the respondent no.2 before filing of the FIR and the balance amount of Rs.6,47,717/- remained to be paid. However, the parties have amicably agreed that the remaining outstanding amount in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties on 29^th March 2019 for the balance payment would be given effect to. Accordingly, in the affidavit, in para no.4, the following statement is made :

¶16

“I say that the said MOU states that the applicant has agreed to pay to the respondent no.2 amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only) by way of RTGS as a part payment immediately after signing of MOU and the balance amount of Rs.1,47,717/- will be paid by the applicant to the respondent no.2 at the time of hearing of the present petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay by way of a Demand Draft”.

¶17

3 It is also further stated in paragraph no.5 of the affidavit that in pursuance of the said MOU dated 29^th March 2019, the respondent no.2 has received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) by way of RTGS transfer on

¶18

Tilak

¶19

3/3 76 APL 302-19.doc

¶20

29^th March 2019. In the aforesaid terms, respondent no.2 has given unequivocal consent for quashing of the subject FIR. In terms of Memorandum of Understanding, the applicant has tendered a Demand Draft of Rs.1,47,717/- to the complainant and the complainant has acknowledged the same in our presence.

¶21

4 Respondent no.2 is personally present in the Court and he accords his no objection for quashing of the said FIR and submits that he is giving his consent without being subjected to any coercive or undue influence.

¶22

5 In the aforesaid circumstances, since the parties have amicably settled the discord between themselves, 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], since the amicable settlement between the parties would put an end to the investigation into the crime which do not have any societal impact and is only personal discord between the parties, we quash and set aside the subject FIR bearing No. 315 of 2018.

¶23

The said quashment is however, made subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to Tata Memorial Hospital. Costs to be paid within a period of four weeks and place the receipt of payment be placed on record within one week after the deposit.

¶24

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.)

¶25

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶26

Tilak

Rachana Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachana Sharma 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

Rohit Nandan Nayak Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravikiran Ganpat Rasal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arvindkumar Jain Dhakad and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri. Nitin Babanrao Gawande Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Anr.

Sunil Ambadas Surwse and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satish Dinesh Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.