Allowed

Mayadevi Pradeep Lohar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2023WP/2989/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Bench, upon a settlement agreement and an affidavit of no objection from the complainant, quashed the criminal FIR registered under sections 420 and 506 IPC against the petitioners, conditioning the允许 on the payment of court costs to the Law Library.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to quash M.E.C.R. No.6 of 2018 subject to payment of Rs. 80,000/- to Kirtikar Law Library.

Mayadevi Pradeep Lohar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:28574-DB

¶2

Patil-SR

¶3

2989-23.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2989 OF 2023

¶7

Mayadevi Pradeep Lohar and Ors....Petitioners.
V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Another....Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Sagar Batavia for the Petitioners.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. P. Rajan Yadav i/by Ms. Ayesha Siddiqui for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM :A.S. GADKARI &

¶11

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶12

DATE :21st September, 2023.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

1. Petitioners, accused in M.E.C.R. No.6 of 2018 dated 7^th

¶15

December 2018 registered with Vakola Police Station, Mumbai under
sections 420 and 506 read with 34 of IPC, have filed present petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the said
crime with the consent of Respondent No. 2, the complainant.

¶16

2.Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that, the
Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have settled their disputes and
differences amicably and have executed Settlement Agreement dated 7th
January 2023. That, in Paragraph No.3 thereof Respondent No. 2 has

1/ 3

Patil-SR

2989-23.doc

agreed to withdraw Complaint No. 215/SW/2017, i.e., the present case.
Present petition is filed in furtherance of the said Settlement Agreement.
3.Advocate for Respondent No. 2 submitted that, Respondent
No.2 has filed an Affidavit dated 23rd March 2023, duly affirmed before
the Assistant Registrar of this Court. In the last paragraph of the said
Affidavit, Respondent No. 2 has given no objection for quashing of the
present crime.

¶21

3.1.Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and
through his Advocate reiterates the contents of his Affidavit dated 23rd
March 2023 and his ‘no objection’ for quashing of the present crime.

¶22

4.In view thereof, we are inclined to quash said crime, i.e.,
M.E.C.R. No.6 of 2018 dated 7th December 2018 registered with Vakola
Police Station, Mumbai.

¶23

5.As we expressed our opinion for quashing of the said crime,
i.e., M.E.C.R. No.6 of 2018 dated 7th December 2018 registered with
Vakola Police Station, Mumbai, learned Advocate for the Petitioners on
instructions submitted that, the Petitioners will pay a cost of Rs.20,000/-
each, totaling to Rs.80,000/-, to Kirtikar Law Library, High Court
Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today. The said statement is
accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

2/ 3

Patil-SR

2989-23.doc

6.We direct the Petitioners to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- each,
totaling to Rs.80,000/-, to Kirtikar Law Library within a period of two
weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the Official
Website of Bombay High Court.

¶28

6.1.Petitioners to deposit the said cost of Rs.80,000/- within
stipulated period as noted above and submit receipt of the same in the
Registry of this Court.

¶29

7. In view of above and subject to payment of cost, petition is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶30

8. It is made clear that, if the cost is not paid within the
stipulated period as mentioned above, the petition shall stand revived
automatically and in that event, the investigating agency shall complete
the investigation of present crime expeditiously.

¶31

9.List the petition on 17th October, 2023 on board for reporting
compliance of present Order.

¶32

(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶33

3/ 3

Mayadevi Pradeep Lohar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayadevi Pradeep Lohar and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Harshad Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Qureshi Subham Zakir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Sawlani and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Pundlik Kalgutkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahesh Sitaram Raut Vs the National Investigation Agency and Anr.

Chhaya Chandrakant More and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.