Allowed

Sujay Madhukar More and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jun 2023WP/1537/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR on account of amicable settlement. The Court found the dispute resolved, noted the respondent's consent, and held that prosecution would serve no purpose.

What did the court decide?

Prayer clause (a) allowed: Quashed and set aside FIR No. 45 of 2023 registered at Deccan Police Station, Pune under Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 504 and 506 IPC, along with criminal proceedings arisin

Sujay Madhukar More and Ors. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Chitra Sonawane WRIT PETITION-1537-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1537 OF 2023

¶4

1. Sujay Madhukar More
Age : 30, Occupation :Business
R/o-Flat No.B1, Shantidip apartments,
Mahalaxmi society lane no 4,

¶5

2. Rajveersingh Rajput
Age: 19 Occu:Student
R/o-plot no 16, Shailesh Soc,
Karve Nagar, Pune-411052

¶6

3. Srujal Yadav
Age :19 Occ:Student
R/o- B-4 Mahesh Plaza,
Warje, Pune-411058

¶7

4.Abhishek Kulkarni
Age : 24 Years, Occ:Student,
R/o-C 202, Ganga Cypress,
Tahtawade, Pimpri Chinchwad-411033

¶8

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE SANJAY Date: SONAWANE 2023.07.31 17:19:40 +0530

¶9

5. Tushar Bhosale
Age: 19 Occ:Student
R/o-B-23 Viola Society
Near Cipla Foundation
Warje-411058

¶10

6. Abhishek Khatavkar
Age:22 Occu:Student
R/o-12, Jay Nagar Housing Society,

¶11

Page No. 1 of 5

¶12

28 June 2023.

¶13

Chitra Sonawane WRIT PETITION-1537-2023.doc

¶14

Khed, Satara-415001

¶15

7. Manasi Damle Natekar
Age 44 Occ:Business
R/o -Building No.1, Flat no.109
R/o-Building No.1, Flat No.109
Vakil Nagar Housing Society,
Erandawane Pune-411004

¶16

8. Atharva Ashish Ojale
Age :22, Occu:Student
R/o-C 202, Ganga Cypress
Thathawade, Pimpri
Chinchwad-411033…Petitioners.

¶17

Versus

¶18

1. The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Deccan Police
Station vide C.R.No.46 of 2023)

¶19

2. Sahil Ganesh Ubhe
Age :21, Occ: Education,
R/o-Plot No.52, Rajmudra Society,
Ujvi Busari Colony, Kothrud Pune ….Respondents.

¶20

Mr.Yash Naik for the petitioners.
Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for Respdt no.2.
Mr KV Saste, APP for State.

¶21

 CORAM: Nitin W. Sambre
 & R.N.Laddha, JJ.

¶22

 DATE : 28 June, 2023.

¶23

Page No. 2 of 5

¶24

28 June 2023.

¶25

Chitra Sonawane WRIT PETITION-1537-2023.doc

¶26

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

¶27

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶28

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

¶29

3.The petitioners have filed this criminal writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash FIR No.45 of
2023, registered at Deccan Police Station, Pune, for the
offence punishable u/Ss 143, 147, 149, 324, 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek to quash the
impugned FIR on the ground that they have amicably settled
the dispute with respondent no.2.

¶30

4.The learned Counsel representing the petitioners and
second respondent have jointly stated that the dispute
between their clients arose due to a misunderstanding and has
since been resolved. They submitted that the petitioners and
respondent No.2 are familiar with each other. They
submitted that continuing with the prosecution would be
pointless, given their settlement.

¶31

Page No. 3 of 5

¶32

28 June 2023.

¶33

Chitra Sonawane WRIT PETITION-1537-2023.doc

¶34

5.The learned APP for respondent no.1 submits that
appropriate orders may be passed.

¶35

6.Respondent No.2 filed a consent affidavit dated
26.04.2023. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and
stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the
impugned FIR against the petitioners. When questioned, he
confirmed the contents of his affidavit and was identified by
his Counsel, and stated that the FIR was lodged due to a
misunderstanding. He said that he had no complaint against
the petitioner. The learned APP has verified his original
Aadhar Card, of which a self-attested copy is placed on
record.

¶36

7.We have examined the facts of the present case. Based
on the material on record, it is apparent that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute. The possibility of conviction in
such circumstances is remote and bleak. Since respondent
no.2 will not support the allegations made by him in the
impugned FIR, in the peculiar facts and circumstances,
nothing fruitful will come out of the prosecution, and no
purpose would be served by keeping the prosecution alive.

¶37

28 June 2023.

¶38

Page No. 4 of 5

¶39

Chitra Sonawane WRIT PETITION-1537-2023.doc

¶40

8.As we express our opinion, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners, on instructions submitted that the petitioners will
pay a cost of Rs.5000/- each to Kirtikar Law Library, High
Court, Mumbai. The statement is accepted as an undertaking
given to this Court. We, therefore, direct the petitioners to
pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- each to Kirtikar Law Library, High
Court Mumbai, within three weeks from the date of
uploading of the present order on the official website of the
High Court.

¶41

9. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus:

¶42

“(a)That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to allow the present petition and quash and set
aside FIR bearing No.0045 of 2023 registered
with Deccan Police Station, Pune under Section
143, 147, 149, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC 1860
alongwith as well as the criminal proceedings
arsing out of the same if any arising out of the
present FIR.”

¶43

10. The rule is made absolute in these terms, and this
petition is disposed of.

¶44

[R.N.Laddha, J.]

¶45

 [Nitin W. Sambre, J.]

¶46

Page No. 5 of 5

¶47

28 June 2023.

Sujay Madhukar More and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujay Madhukar More and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Suyog @ Bobby Samuel Aarwattigi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rais Abdul Rehman Imamdar @ Momin and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajesh Mansukhlal Parekh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwajeet Subhash Jhavar Vs Pratil Pravin Bhandari and Ors.

Vinayak S/O Nana Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Aadisha Kadappa and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.