Allowed

Bhavna Narendra Chitalia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2021APL/7/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed Criminal Application regarding FIR for cheating and misappropriation of deposit in a commercial dispute. Parties settled and returned money with interest; court applied Gian Singh principles allowing quashal on consent.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash C.R.No.591 of 2019 under sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC was allowed on consent.

Bhavna Narendra Chitalia and Anr. Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

skn 1 49-APL-7.2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2020

¶4

Mrs.Bhavna Narendra Chitalia and another. … Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another. … Respondents.

¶5

Mr.Vicky Sharma for the Applicants. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent- State. Mr.Vipul Shukla for Respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 13 December 2021.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Taken up for

¶9

disposal.

¶10

2 The Applicants have sought following reliefs in this application:

¶11

(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside C.R.No.591 of 2019 registered with Dahisar Police Station for offence punishable under section 420, 406,

¶12

skn 2 49-APL-7.2020.doc

¶13

504, 506 (II) r/w. 34 of I.P.C., on such term and condition a this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶14

The learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 state that the parties have resolved their dispute, which is a commercial dispute, on monetary terms and make a joint prayer to quash the FIR by consent. The learned counsel for the parties rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. The State Of Punjab¹ .

¶15

The FIR filed by Respondent No.2 states that the Petitioners were intending to sell their flat and pursuant to the intention to purchase the flat, Respondent No.2 gave a deposit of Rs.1,01,000/- to the Petitioners. It is the case of Respondent No.2 that in spite of deposit, an agreement was not executed and the deposit was misappropriated.

¶16

The Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit, contents of which are reiterated by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. It is stated that the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have settled the matter and the Petitioners have returned the amount of Rs.1,01,000/- with interest of Rs.15,000/- to Respondent No.2. Perusal of the FIR and the affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 would show that the dispute leading to FIR was a private dispute and it does not have repercussions on the society.

¶17

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶18

skn 3 49-APL-7.2020.doc

¶19

In the light of the consent affidavit now tendered and considering the contents of the FIR, the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties that the case is covered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh is correct and benefits of the same can be extended to the parties.

¶20

Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶21

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Bhavna Narendra Chitalia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavna Narendra Chitalia 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yunus Mehboob Nadaf Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sushant Sambhaji Rasal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javed Habib Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Satyabeer Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Munaf Ibrahim Mujawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chetan Bharatkumar Dhakan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.