Allowed

Vineet Kumar Balkrishna and Ors. S v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jan 2021APL/501/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants moved for quashing of FIR based on a settlement. The High Court held that the dispute was civil in nature and committed to settlement. The court allowed the application and quashed proceedings, making the order absolute upon deposit of costs into a child fund account.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute and Impugned FIR is quashed, subject to the deposit of Rs. 20,000/- by the applicants.

Vineet Kumar Balkrishna and Ors. S Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

38-APL-501-2020.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by Vishwanath 1 / 5 Vishwanath S. Sherla S. Sherla Date: 2021.01.18 19:49:48 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 501 OF 2020

¶4

1.	Vineet Kumar Balkrishna Age- 34 years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, R/at: Rose Venchor, Macanized Boot Laundary, LTT, Tilaknagar, Mumbai-400089.	] ] ] ] ] ] ]
2.	Rahul Kumar Maddeshiya Age- 30 Years, Having address at 49, Khushi Nagar Uttar Pradesh-274406.	] ] ]
3.	Sajid Abdul Razzak Shaikh Age- 36 Years, Having address at Room No. 384, Riddhi Palace, Mumbai Pune Road, Near Mumbra Police Station, Thane, Mumbai.	] ] ] ] ] ]
4.	Sirajuddin Ajmat Ali Khan Age- 40 Years, Having address at Room No. 2, Sujiya Sant Kabir Nagar, Amorhwa Basti, Uttar Pradesh-272125.	] ] ] ] ]...PETITIONERS
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra (Kurla Railway Police Station)	] ]
2.	Wasim Saleem Shaikh Age- 33 Years, Occ- Service Having office address at A-1 Facility Managaer, A-1, Facility and Property Managers, Pvt. Ltd. And R/at: KWG/374, Kohinoor Society Opp. Kohinoor Hotel, Andheri West, Mumbai-400058. ...	] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]...RESPONDENTS

Bhagyawant Punde

38-APL-501-2020.doc

2 / 5

Mr. Saurabh B. Rane for Applicants. Mr. Maroof Khan for Respondent No. 2. Smt. A.S. Pai, APP for State. Mr. Himraj Sathe, API, Kurla Police Station-present. Mr. Waseem Saleem Shaikh, Respondent No. 2-present.

¶9

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : JANUARY 18, 2021.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.].:

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent

¶13

of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for applicants and Respondent No. 2 jointly submits that the applicants and Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled the dispute and to that effect, the affidavit is filed by Respondent No. 2.

¶15

The parties are identified by their respective advocates. On 13.01.2021 the applicants were present in the Court. On interaction with the applicants, they have stated that they are doing their respective jobs and they have not indulged in any such alleged activities.

¶16

The Respondent No. 2 is present before this Court. He stated that it is his voluntary act to enter into such settlement and give no objection for quashing the impugned FIR. He stated that the pillow covers and bed

Bhagyawant Punde

38-APL-501-2020.doc

3 / 5

sheets were given for cleaning and those were not not returned by the applicants, therefore out of misunderstanding the impugned FIR was registered.

¶21

Since the applicants and Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled the dispute and Respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing the impugned FIR, no purpose will be served by continuing the further proceedings arising out of FIR No. 981 of 2020 registered with Kurla Railway Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 379 read with 34 of IPC. Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations in the FIR and continuation of proceedings arsing out of FIR No. 981 of 2020, registered with Kurla Railway Police Station, would tantamount to the abuse of the process of the court.

¶22

The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab and Another 1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolves their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde

38-APL-501-2020.doc

4 / 5

criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. It is further held that, as inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (I) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶27

In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs and the averments of affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 2, we are of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to deposit costs of Rs. 20,000/- by the applicants (Rs. 5000/- to each applicant), within two weeks from today in the following account:-

¶28

Name of Account Holder For J.J. FundDY.COMMI. (CHILD DEVELOP) AND MEM. SECY. & TRY M S CHILD FUND

¶29

Account No.- Name & Address of	11099464354
Bank-	State Bank of India, Pune Main Branch, Collector Office Compound, Pune.
Branch Code-	454.
IFSC- MICR-	SBIN0000454. 411002002.

Bhagyawant Punde

38-APL-501-2020.doc

5 / 5

Rule made absolute on above terms and writ petition stands

¶34

disposed of accordingly. We make it clear that this order will take effect only after depositing of aforesaid amount by the applicants.

¶35

All parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶36

( MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶37

(S. S. SHINDE, J.)

¶38

Bhagyawant Punde

Vineet Kumar Balkrishna and Ors. S v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar Balkrishna and Ors. S v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Rajkumar Krishanchand Bawa @ Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Himanshu Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vivek N. Madaan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Myra'S World through Proprietor Archana Kushwaha Vs Commissioner of Customs and Ors.

Christinarhea Praveer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Juzar Mustansir Angoothiwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.