Allowed

Manish D. Khandelwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2019WP/1371/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court, following settlement between parties in a case concerning cheating under Section 420 IPC, allowed a writ petition under Article 226 Constitution and Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR. The judgment imposes a conditional order where quashment is contingent upon payment of court costs.

What did the court decide?

The subject FIR is hereby quashed provided the Petitioner pays a cost of Rs. 25,000 to Tata Memorial Hospital and produces the receipt within four weeks. Failure to do so leads to automatic dismissal.

Manish D. Khandelwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp-1371/19.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1371 OF 2019

¶4

Manish D. Khandelwal.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Others.

¶7

..Petitioner. ..Respondents.

¶8

Ms. Gauri Godse for the Petitioner. Mr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent-State. Vinayak V. Katti for Respondent No. 3.

¶9

Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. Date : April 12, 2019 .

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and learned APP for the RespondentState. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR bearing CR. No. 89 of 2018 registered with Kasarvadavali Police Station, Thane. The substratum of allegations in the said FIR registered at the instance of Respondent No. 3 is the commission of offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶12

The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation into the said FIR, with the help and intervention of friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to the understanding arrived at between them, present petition is filed for quashing the above FIR by consent

1 / 3

patilsr

wp-1371/19.

of Respondent No. 3.

Respondent No. 3 has accordingly filed an affidavit dated 11^th April 2019. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, he has given no objection to quash the subject FIR registered at his instance. Respondent No.3 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 against the Petitioner.

¶18

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the subject FIR alive pending except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.

¶19

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, petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it would be appropriate to

2 / 3

patilsr

wp-1371/19.

saddle the Petitioner with the cost of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be paid to “ Tata Memorial Hospital ” an institution that takes care of the advanced and terminally ill cancer patients. For the quashment to take effect, the Petitioner shall pay the said cost and produce the receipt 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, petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est.

¶24

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

¶25

3 / 3

¶26

patilsr

Manish D. Khandelwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish D. Khandelwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Shree Atul Ashok More Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Nitin Jalinder Karande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pratap Bhimrao Pagare Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, and Ors.

Rishi Techtex Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sunil Mangilal Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Gangadhar Gadkari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.