Allowed

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

Bombay HC27 Mar 2019APL/50/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR based on an amicable settlement between parties. Respondent No. consented to quashing. Applicants were directed to pay court costs to a charitable trust.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the FIR and set aside proceedings allowed. Applicants saddled with cost of Rs. 5,000 each payable to Yashodhan Charitable Trust.

Hritik Appasaheb Rupanar and Ors. Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

APL-50/19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 2019

¶4

Hrithik Appashaeb Rupanar & Others. ..Applicants. Versus State of Maharashtra & Another. ..Respondents.

¶5

..Respondents.

¶6

Mr. H. S. Shinde for the Applicants.

¶7

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

¶8

Mr. Rakesh Dhotre for Respondent No.2.

¶9

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

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

¶12

parties. This is an application filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash and set aside the FIR

¶13

bearing CR. No.12 of 2019 registered with Kandivali Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 326, 506(2), 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 37(1)(a) read with 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. The said FIR came to be registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 herein.

¶14

The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties

1 / 3

patilsr

APL-50/19

submitted that pending investigation, with the help and intervention of friends and well-wishers, the parties have 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.

¶19

Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 20^th March 2019. In paragraph 6 and 7 of the said affidavit, he has stated that he has no objection to quash the subject FIR in view of the settlement of disputes with the Applicants. 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 him against

¶20

the Applicants.

¶21

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

2 / 3

patilsr

APL-50/19

circumstances of the case, we find it would be appropriate to saddle the Applicants with the cost of Rs.5,000/- 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. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, application shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est.

¶26

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

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

patilsr

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hritik Appasaheb Rupanar and Ors. 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.

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