Allowed

Vikas Vinayak Deodhar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2021WP/208/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition sought quashing of an FIR for cheating. The High Court allowed the petition after the accused filed an affidavit consenting to quashing and handed over a demand draft of Rs. 10 lakh to the victim, who confirmed the grievance was satisfied.

What did the court decide?

The FIR No. 291 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018 with the Dadar Police Station is quashed and set aside.

Vikas Vinayak Deodhar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

Vishwanath S. Sherla

18-WP-208-2019.doc

1 / 4

Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.03.10 09:45:56 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2019

¶8

Vikas Vinayak Deodhar
Indian, Adult, presently
residing at 2503, Shreeji Heights,
T.H. Kataria Marg,
Opp. Ganga Vihar Hotel, Matunga,
(West), Mumbai- 400 016.
2. Santosh Vikas Deodhar
Indian, Adult, also residing at
2503, Shreeji Heights,
T.H. Kataria Marg,
Opp. Ganga Vihar Hotel, Matunga,
(West), Mumbai- 400 016. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Senior P.I. Dadar
Police Station, Mumbai 400028.
2. Ajay Shankar Kadam
7/322 Shiv Kiran CHS, Shivaji Nagar,
Worli, Dr.A.B. Road, Mumbai- 400 030. ... RESPONDENTS
…
Ms. Shaba N. Khan i/b. Govilkar & Associates LLP for Petitioners.
Mr. Rajesh Devgharkar for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Deepak Thakre, PP a/w. Mrs. M H Mhatre, APP for State.
Respondent No. 2 is present.

¶9

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

¶10

 DATE : 9th MARCH, 2021.

Bhagyawant Punde

18-WP-208-2019.doc

2 / 4

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

¶15

.Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Respondent
No. 2 jointly submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.
Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has tendered across the
bar, affidavit of Respondent No.2, the same is taken on record. Paragraphs 1
to 3 of the said affidavit reads as under:-

¶17

1)I say that it is true that the Respondent No. 2 and
Petitioner No. 1 & 2 have settled all their disputes by
Signing Consent Terms dated 9th March, 2021, on the
terms & conditions as more particularly set out in the
said Consent Terms dated 9th March, 2021.

¶18

2)I hereby give my Consent for quashing of FIR No.
291 of 2018 u/s. 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code
lodged by me in Dadar Police Station, Mumbai. I
further say that I have no objection if this Hon’ble
Court quashes the said FIR.

¶19

3)I am executing this affidavit to place the above
facts on record and to enable Petitioners and
Respondent No. 2 to seek and order of quashing of FIR
No. 291 of 2018 from this Hon’ble Court.

Bhagyawant Punde

18-WP-208-2019.doc

3 / 4

3.Respondent No. 2 is present before this Court. He stated that it
is his voluntary act to enter into the settlement and give consent for
quashing the impugned FIR. Demand draft of Rs. 10,00,000/- is received by
the advocate for the 2nd respondent and in turn he has handed over the said
demand draft to Respondent No. 2 who is present in the Court. The
Respondent No. 2 has stated that his grievance is satisfied and he has no
objection for quashing the impugned FIR. Since the parties have amicably
settled the dispute and 2nd respondent has joined the prayer of the
petitioners for quashing impugned FIR, the further continuation of
proceedings arising out of FIR No. 291 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018 registered
with Dadar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 420
read with 34 of IPC, would tantamount to the abuse of the process of the
concerned Court.

¶24

4.The Supreme Court in the case ofGiansingh v. State of Punjab
and Another1 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

¶25

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde

18-WP-208-2019.doc

4 / 4

their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the
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.

¶30

5.In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, to secure the
ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the law/court, the
petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (b), which reads as under:-

¶31

b)after going through the same, the said
CR/FIR 291 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018 with
the Dadar Police Station be quashed and set
aside.

¶32

6.The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

( MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶34

Bhagyawant Punde

Vikas Vinayak Deodhar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Vinayak Deodhar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Capt. Amol Vasant Kelkar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shivguru Dattatray Gore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arif S/O. Shehzad Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sunil Sankharlalji Ostwal Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Picsell Realtors LLP Throughits Authorised Representative Mr. Vineet Govardhan Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Atul Projects India Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.