Allowed

Yogesh Sunder Sontakke and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Mar 2019WP/508/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. The dispute was amicably settled with the consent of the accused, and the complainant confirmed no objection to quashing. The court imposed costs for utilizing public judicial mechanisms.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed, criminal case quashed; petitioners directed to pay Rs.15,000 to Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital within four weeks.

Yogesh Sunder Sontakke and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

508.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 508 of 2019

¶4

Mr. Yogesh Sunder Sontakke and ors. …....Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. …....Respondents

¶5

Mr. Kishor Walanje, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State. Mr. Sandesh More, advocate for the respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 25^th March, 2019.

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, seeks leave to amend the prayer clause of the petition so as to give particulars of the criminal case. Since the amendment is necessitated by occurrence of events subsequent to the filing of the petition, leave as prayed for is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶9

2. Heard learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the respective parties.

¶10

The petition is filed for quashing and setting-aside the criminal case No.75 of 2018 pending on the file of th learned Metropolitan

¶11

SRPatil 1/3

¶12

508.doc

¶13

Magistrte, 12^th Court at Bandra. The said case arises out of registration of FIR bearing CR No.268 of 2017 registered with Sahu Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, at the instance of the respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under sections 326, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

Pending trial, the parties to the petition settled their dispute amicably with the intervention of the elders and well-wishers and, in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, they have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings of the subject criminal case by consent. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 28^th January, 2019. In paragraph (4), he has given his no objection for quashing the proceedings of the subject case. The respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, he specifically stated that he has gone through the petition and affidavit as well and has fully understood the contents thereof. He further confirmed that he has given no objection for quashing the proceedings of the subject criminal case out of his own free will and without there being any pressure or coercion.

¶15

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the

¶16

SRPatil 2/3

¶17

508.doc

¶18

allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, 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], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes.

¶19

Accordingly, the the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- by the petitioners to Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital, Mumbai, for the use of its philanthropic purposes. The petitioners shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.

¶20

Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

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

¶22

SRPatil 3/3

Yogesh Sunder Sontakke and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Sunder Sontakke 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

Siddharth Niranjan Pagedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Islam Raju Pathan@Islam Said Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dattratay Rajaram Madne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravi Anandrao Ghare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shamshuddin Javed Khan @ Saddam Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul Digamber Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.