Partly allowed

Vaibhav Atmaram Kokate and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 May 2022WP/3312/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioners accused of cheating under IPC sections 417-471, finding that the dispute had settled via consent terms agreeing to possession of a flat.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; FIR in C.R. No.10 of 2016 for offences under IPC Sections 417, 419, 424, 426, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 quashed and set aside.

Vaibhav Atmaram Kokate and Ors. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

WP 3312-18.doc

¶2

Chittewan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3312 OF 2018

¶5

Mr. Vaibhav Atmaram Kokate
And Others
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra
And Others

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

***

¶9

Mr. Sanjeev Sawant a/w Mr. Anil Dubey i/b Veena Dubey for the
Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP fore the Respondent-State.
Mr. Nilesh Pandey i/b Equa Juris for Respondent No.3.

¶11

***

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

¶13

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 4 MAY 2022

¶15

P. C. : (Per S.M. Modak, J.)

¶16

.The present Petitioners are the accused in C.R. No.10 of 20-16
registered at Bhandup Police Station, Mumbi for the offences punishable
under Sections 417, 419, 424, 426, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of Respondent No.3 Vijay
Sinkander Sharma. Respondent No.3 is the owner of Panchal Niwas,
situated at Mauje Kanjurmarg, Tal. Kurla. The occupants of the hut have
form Parshwanath Rehabilitation Society. Panchal Niwas consists of seven
rooms and five shops. There was an agreement in between proposed
society and M/s Swami Samarth Builders and Developers, M/s
Chintamani Realtors. The Petitioners fraudulently have shown more
rooms and shops on the site and accordingly, obtained excess FIS and
accordingly cheated Respondent No.3.

¶17

1/2

¶18

WP 3312-18.doc

¶19

Chittewan

¶20

2The Petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail before this Court.
Consent terms were executed and the Petitioners have agreed to give
possession of a Flat to Respondent No.3. Its copy is filed on record at
Page 85. The detailed terms are mentioned therein. On that basis,
anticipatory bail was granted to the Petitioners by Single Bench of this
Court as per Order dated 6 July 2018. Accordingly, Respondent No.3 has
agreed to co-operate for quashing the prosecution. He has filed affidavit-
cum-declaration. In view of that dispute is settled between the parties.
The Petitioners have agreed to act as per the consent terms. No purpose
will be served by keeping the prosecution pending. Hence, the Order.

¶21

: O R D E R :

¶22

 (i)Writ Petition No.3312 of 2018 is allowed.

¶23

(ii)FIR in C.R. No.10 of 2016 dated 5 January 2016, for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 419, 424, 426, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Bhandup Police Station is quashed and set aside.

¶24

 (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2022.05.05 18:26:40 +0530

¶26

2/2

Vaibhav Atmaram Kokate and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Atmaram Kokate and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vardhishnu Magasvargiya Bahuudeshiya Samajik Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Adarshkumar @ Mogya Hindurao Landge and Anr. Vs Mahesh Shankar Gavandare and Anr.

Santoshkumar Ram Singh and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Thr Uma Salma Mansuri and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harita Sunil Parab and Anr. Vs Shivani Vichare and Ors.

Rashmi Ranjan Patra and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.