Allowed

Haresh Jayram Bhoir @ Haresh Yashwant Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2023APL/130/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR registered for offences relating to cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. The court observed that the dispute had a predominantly civil flavor and was settled amicably by the parties, making further prosecution an abuse of process and serving no purpose.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 17/2020 and proceedings arising from it quashed and set aside subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each as costs.

Haresh Jayram Bhoir @ Haresh Yashwant Bhoir Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

apl 130.23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2023

¶4

Haresh Jayram Bhoir @
Haresh Yashwant Bhoir
Room No.84, Vasatgaon,
Ambernath (West),
Kalyan, Thane … Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Maharashtra (Through Worli Police Station)

¶7

2. Landmark Lifestyle Cars Private
 Limited,
 Ground floor,
 Shivsagar Estate ‘D’ Block,
 Worli, Mumbai 400 018… Respondents

¶8

Mr Gaurav Parkar for Applicant.

¶9

Mr Rohan Sonawane for Respondent No.2.

¶10

Smt A S Pai, GP a/w. Ms M H Mhatre, APP for the
Respondent No.1-State.

¶11

Mr Surendra Agarwal, authorised representative of
respondent No.2 present in Court.

¶12

Digitally signed by LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2023.07.19 17:25:42 +0530

¶13

Page No. 1 of 5 ______________________________________________ 10 July 2023

¶14

apl 130.23.doc

¶15

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶16

 DATE : 10th JULY 2023

¶17

Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :-

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

2.Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the
consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the
parties.

¶20

3.By this Criminal Application, under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks the
quashing of FIR No.17 of 2020, dated 23 January 2020,
registered against him at Worli Police Station, Mumbai at the
instance of Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable
under Sections 408,465,467,468,471,201 r/w 34of the
Indian Penal Code. Quashing is sought on the premise that the
parties have amicably settled their dispute.

¶21

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent
No.2 jointly stated that the dispute arose due to some
misunderstanding, which has now been settled amicably.They

¶22

Page No. 2 of 5 ______________________________________________ 10 July 2023

¶23

apl 130.23.doc submitted that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose, given the settlement between the parties. They argued that this case is covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions in Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab & Anr. 1 and Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Punjab and Anr. 2

¶24

5.Learned APP representing Respondent No.1 submits
that suitable orders may be passed.

¶25

6.The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 tendered a
consent affidavit dated 10 January 2023of one Mr Surendra
Agrawal,the Chief Financial Officer and an authorised
representativeof Respondent No.2 company, appeared before
us and stated that he has no objection to quash the impugned
FIR against the Applicant. Upon questioning, he confirmed
the contents of his affidavit. His counsel identified him, and
the learned APP has verified his original Aadhar Card, of
which a duly signed copy is placed on record.

¶26

7.After examining the present case in accordance with the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra) and the material on
record, it is clear that the dispute predominantly has a civil

¶27

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶28

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶29

Page No. 3 of 5 ______________________________________________ 10 July 2023

¶30

apl 130.23.doc flavour and had been resolved amicably. It is admitted by Respondent No.2 that he is not beneficiary of any amount allegedly siphoned off from the account of Respondent No.2 company. As the complainant is no longer willing to support the allegations, which he now described as arising from misunderstanding, allowing criminal prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court and serve no purpose given the settlement between the parties. Moreover, the conflict has no repercussions for society in general. In order to secure ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned FIR qua the Petitioner.The consent affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 supports the prayer to quash the impugned FIR. Therefore, based on these facts, FIR bearing C.R. No.17/2020 registered with Worli Police Station against the Applicant needs to be quashed and set aside.

¶31

8.Accordingly, we allow this Criminal Application in terms
of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and quash and set aside the
subject FIR No.17/2020 dated 23 January 2020, registered
with Worli Police Station, Mumbai, along with the
proceedings arising from it subject to deposit of costs of
Rs.10,000/- each by the Applicant and Respondent No.2 with

¶32

Page No. 4 of 5 ______________________________________________ 10 July 2023

¶33

apl 130.23.doc the High Court Legal Services Authority within three weeks of the uploading of this order.

¶34

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

R. N. LADDHA, J. NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶36

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

¶37

Page No. 5 of 5 ______________________________________________ 10 July 2023

Haresh Jayram Bhoir @ Haresh Yashwant Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haresh Jayram Bhoir @ Haresh Yashwant Bhoir v. 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

Dinesh Haribhai Dodia and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Sujeetkumar Jeetpratap Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Wasim Nisar Maste Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Haresh Gul Setpal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Bhimashankar Developers through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Yash Rajnish Bhandari and Ors. Vs Subhash Shaligram Gupta and Ors.

Purva Rajendra Chopada and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.