Nikunj Rajesh Jasani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

4-wp-528-2023.doc

Shailaja

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.528 OF 2023

¶4

1. Nikunj Rajesh Jasani ] 2. Manish Vinodchandra Shah ] 3. Bharat Chandulal Bhanushali ] Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra ]

¶7

2. Vishal Usha Kejriwal]Respondents

¶8

Mr. Jash Vyas a/w Mr. Punit Vyas, for Petitioners.

¶9

Ms. S.S. Kaushik, A.P.P, for Respondent No.1-State.

¶10

Mr. Rajesh Singh a/w Mr. Karan Mehta and Mr. Harshad Joshi, for
Respondent No.2.

¶11

Mr. Bangar, P.I. EOW, Unit 3.

¶12

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
 PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.J.

¶13

 DATE : 16th February, 2023.

¶14

ORDER: [Per Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.]

1. Heard.

2. Rule.

1 of 10

SHAILAJASHRIKANT Digitally signed by SHAILAJASHRIKANT HALKUDEDate: 2023 03 01 10:57:34

¶19

4-wp-528-2023.doc

¶20

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶21

4. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1State and Mr. Singh, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.2 (Original Complainant).

¶22

5.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short "Cr. P.C"), the petitioners seek quashing of the First
Information Report (for short "F.I.R") registered vide C.R. No.321
of 2018 with Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged
offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w
120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C") and subsequently
investigated by EOW, Unit - III, Mumbai under C.R. No.120 of
2018.

¶23

6. Briefly stated, facts are as follows.

¶24

7. Respondent No.2 is the original complainant. His grand

¶25

parents viz. Babulal Mahadeo Kejriwal and Ratnidevi Babulal

¶26

2 of 10

¶27

4-wp-528-2023.doc

¶28

Kejriwal were issueless. Therefore, they had adopted Vinodkumar
i.e father of the respondent No.2 by Adoption Deed dated 20th
April, 1971. Vinodkumar was the son of Omprakash Changoiwala.
Omprakash Changoiwala had three sons. Vinodkumar was the
second biological son of Omprakash Changoiwala and Mrs.
Shashidevi. Omprakash Changoiwala is the real brother of
Ratnidevi Babulal Kejriwal.

¶29

8.On 24th May, 1983 Vinodkumar was married to Usha
Kejriwal (nee Usha Bedia). Respondent No.2 was born on 8th May,
1984. Respondent No.2 is the only child of Vinodkumar and Usha
Kejriwal. Babulal Mahadeo Kejriwal expired on 3rd September,
1973 while Ratanidevi Babulal Kejriwal died on 4th April, 2007.
By the end of the year 2015, on the basis of the documents obtained
by filing revocation application, the respondent No.2 came to know
about the offences committed by the petitioners. There are several
properties involved in the litigation as stated in paragraph 4(e) of
the petition. Parents of the respondent No.2 separated on 4th
December, 2007. Till the death of his father on 4th April, 2007,
respondent No.2 was residing at "Ratan Niwas". It is alleged that
since 1985 till 2006, respondent No.2 and his mother were forced

¶30

3 of 10

¶31

4-wp-528-2023.doc

¶32

to stay at the house of his maternal grandmother Late Smt.
Geetadevi R. Bedia. After separation of his parents, respondent
No.2 was not on visiting terms with his father. He was not informed
about death of his father by Changoiwala family though the
respondent No.2 was the only son who had a right to perform his
father's last rites. It is alleged that Changoiwalas' purposefully did
not intimate the respondent No.2 and his mother about demise of
his father.

¶33

9.Subsequently, the respondent No.2 came to know about the
probate petition of Will of his grandmother Ratnidevi filed in this
Court. Respondent No.2, therefore, obtained details of the
testamentary petition and suspected that Changoiwalas' have
misappropriated properties of his father and grand parents.
Thereafter, the respondent No.2 obtained documents from the
concerned Government Departments and came to know that the
said Changoiwala and others, for their own economic benefits,
conspired and cheated even the concerned Government
Departments by preparing false documents such as Development
agreement dated 21st April, 2015 in respect of "Ratan Niwas", sale
deed dated 18th February, 2013 in respect of property situate at

¶34

4 of 10

¶35

4-wp-528-2023.doc

¶36

Tungarli, Maval, Pune, illegal documents in respect of petrol pumps,
lacunae in Will dated 10th December, 2004 of Ratanidevi Babulal
Kejariwal, alleged Will dated 28th August, 1972 of Babulal
Mahadeo Kejariwal, alleged Will dated 20th November, 1985 of
Vinodkumar Babulal Kejariwal. Accused No.2 - Arun Changoiwala
had filed Testamentary Petition No.196 of 2009 for probating the
purported concocted, false Will of deceased Ratanidevi Kejriwal.
Accused No.2 - Arun Changoiwala had obtained Probate dated 24th
December, 2010 by playing fraud and illegality in order to
dishonestly grab the movable and immovable property of the father,
grandfather and grandmother of the respondent No.2 in collusion
and connivance with each other. It is alleged that accused No.1 and
2 had suppressed the true and material facts from this Court and
even misled this Court. It is alleged that accused had, therefore,
played fraud upon this Court as well as upon the respondent No.2.
He, therefore, filed Revocation Petition. Accused Nos. 4 to 6,
witnesses of the purported Will dated 14th March, 2001 of
deceased Ratanidevi are close relatives and childhood friends of
accused No.2-Arun Changoiwala. The respondent No.2, inter alia,
lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others, pursuant to
which, C.R. No.321 of 2018 dated 25th December, 2018 came to

¶37

5 of 10

¶38

4-wp-528-2023.doc

¶39

be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable
under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of the I.P.C at
Azad Maidan Police Station and subsequently the matter was
investigated by EOW, Unit - III, Mumbai under C.R. No.120 of
2018.

¶40

10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respective
parties that the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have settled
their dispute and entered into the consent terms dated 6th October,
2022, copy of which is annexed at 'Exhibit B'. In view of the said
consent terms, this Court disposed of Miscellaneous Petition No.49
of 2016 as well as Suit No.582 of 2016 vide order dated 6th
October, 2022, copy of which is annexed at 'Exhibit C'. Paragraphs
No.10, 23 and 33 of the consent terms filed in Suit No.582 of 2016
are relevant for the purpose of quashing of the F.I.R, which read
thus;

¶41

"10. The Defendant No.1 hereby agrees that
in addition to the aforesaid three flats along
with three car parkings, as referred in Clause
No.5 hereinabove, the Defendant No.1 shall
pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the Plaintiff in the
following manner i.e 1) Rs.5,00,000/- by D.D.
No.090815 dated 26/09/2022 drawn on Bank
of India, Mahim Branch, Mumbai on the date

¶42

6 of 10

¶43

4-wp-528-2023.doc

¶44

of signing of this Consent Terms and 2)
Rs.5,00,000 by D.D on the day of quashing of
the F.I.R/C.R. No.120 of 2018 registered with
the Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai against
the Defendants and other Accused. Further,
the cost of quashing of the F.I.R/C.R
registered with Economic Offences Wing,
Mumbai against the Defendants and other
Accused shall be solely borne by Defendant
Nos. 1 and 3 alone. However, for the
quashing of the aforesaid F.I.R/C.R., the
Parties concerned shall individually bear the
legal expenses for their respective Lawyers.

¶45

"23.The Plaintiff undertakes to aid and assist
the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and other accused
in quashing of FIR/C.R No.120/2018 pending
with the Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai or
any other authority. However, the Defendant
Nos. 1 to 4 undertakes to file the appropriate
proceeding before the competent court of law
for quashing of the aforesaid FIR/C.R, within
30 days from the date of filing of this Consent
Terms. Further, the cost of quashing of the
aforesaid FIR/C.R. registered with Economic
offences wing shall be solely borne by
Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 alone. However, for
the quashing of the aforesaid FIR/C.R, the
Parties concerned shall individually bear the
legal expenses for their respective Lawyers".

¶46

33.The parties to the present Consent Terms
hereby withdraw all the allegations made
against each other as well as pending litigation
and arbitration proceedings, unconditionally.

¶47

7 of 10

¶48

4-wp-528-2023.doc

¶49

And further in view of this Settlement, the
Plaintiff and Defendants shall not raise claim
and/or damages against each other. However,
in the event of breach/violation of the terms
and conditions of this Consent Terms, the
parties are at liberty to exhaust their legal
remedy, in accordance with law".

¶50

11.Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has tendered
consent affidavit of the respondent No.2 dated 13th February, 2023
duly notarized before the Notary. A photostat copy of the Aadhar
Card of the respondent No.2 duly attested by him is annexed with
the said affidavit. The same are taken on record. In the said consent
affidavit, the respondent No.2 has stated that he has given his
consent for quashing of the aforesaid F.I.R, in view of the consent
terms, arrived at between him and the petitioners. He has further
stated that he has given consent out of his free will and volition
without any undue influence and/or coercion.

¶51

12.Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. On being
questioned, he reiterates what is stated by him in his affidavit.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has identified
him. Learned A.P.P has verified his original Aadhar Card.

¶52

8 of 10

¶53

4-wp-528-2023.doc

¶54

13.Considering nature of the dispute, amicable settlement
between the parties in view of the consent terms arrived at between
the parties, consent affidavit of the respondent No.2 and having
regard to the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in the
cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another1 and Narinder
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another2, there is no
impediment in allowing the petition.

¶55

14.The petition is accordingly allowed. First Information Report
registered vide C.R. No.321 of 2018 with Azad Maidan Police
Station, Mumbai and subsequently investigated by EOW, Unit - III,
Mumbai under C.R. No.120 of 2018, against the petitioners, is
quashed and set aside.

¶56

15.The petitioners to deposit costs of Rs.1,00,000/ each with

¶57

"Jeevan Sandhya Mangalya Sansthan". Bank details of which are as
under:

¶58

`Name of Account`	`Jeevan Sandhya Mangalya` `Sansthan`
`Account Number`	`60134381699`
`Type of Account`	`Saving`
`Name of Bank`	`Bank of Maharashtra`

¶59

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶60

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶61

9 of 10

¶62

4-wp-528-2023.doc

¶63

`Branch`	`Padgha`
`IFSC Code`	`MAHB0000189`
`PAN NUMBER`	`AAATJ2015Q`

¶64

The said costs to be deposited within four weeks from today.

¶65

16. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms subject to the petitioners depositing costs, as stated above. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶66

17. Matter be listed for recording compliance regarding deposit of costs, on 23rd March, 2023.

¶67

18.All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of this
order.

¶68

[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]

¶69

 [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

¶70

10 of 10

Nikunj Rajesh Jasani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikunj Rajesh Jasani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atmaram Tukaram Jadhav Vs the of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abhishek Rajendra Mahale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kushal Chandrakant Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mangesh Manohar Rane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip Mohanlal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Omprakash L. Changoiwala and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.