The Court quashed an FIR under the IPC regarding a property dispute after finding that the parties had amicably settled their differences. The petition was disposed of with costs.
Impugned FIR No. 427 of 2021 and proceedings arising therefrom quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp 97.22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2022
1. Hari Bhachubhai Mujat Age 40 years
2. Bachubhai Dharmashi Arethiya Age 55 years
3. Mukesh Patel Age 42 years
All adults having office at
Office No.225, 2nd floor, B Splash,
Plot No.78 & 79, Sector 17, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra … Petitioners
Versus1.The State of Maharashtra Through the Inspector In-chargeNerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai Thane.2. Dulal Chandra Saha
A/1, Om Shanti CHS, Plot No.10/9, Near Apeejay School, Sector 15, Nerul East, Navi Mumbai 400706. … RespondentsMr Arun Panicker a/w. Rajeev Sharma i/b. Manju Pillai for
Petitioner.
Page No. 1 of 4 ______________________________________________ 5 July 2023
Digitally signed by LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2023.07.15 17:22:16 +0530
wp 97.22.doc
Mr J P Yagnik, APP for the State.
Mr Avinash Fatangare a/w. Sandesh Kate i/b Mahendra
Shingade for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 05 JULY 2023
Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the
consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the
parties.
3.The Petitioners have filed this Criminal Writ Petition
under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to
quash FIR No. 427 of 2021 dated 18 November 2021
registered at Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, and the proceedings arising therefrom.
The petitioners seek to quash the FIR on the ground that they
have amicably settled their dispute with Respondent No.2.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent Page No. 2 of 4 ______________________________________________ 5 July 2023
wp 97.22.doc No.2, in unison, submitted that dispute arose from a misunderstanding in a property transaction. And continuing the prosecution would be pointless since they had reached a settlement. They stated that the dispute had been resolved amicably, and consent terms dated 1st December 2021 to that effect are also filed on record. They submitted that the dispute was purely civil and falls under the purview of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab & Anr. 1 and Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Punjab and Anr. 2
5.Learned APP for Respondent No.1 submits that
appropriate orders may be passed.
6.The record shows that Respondent No.2 has filed a
consent affidavit, and he is present in the Court and states
that he has no objection to quash the impugned FIR against
the Petitioners since all his claims have been settled. When
questioned, he reiterated the statement from his affidavit and
was identified by his counsel.
7.We have examined present case in light of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.
2 (2014) 6 SCC 466.
Page No. 3 of 4 ______________________________________________ 5 July 2023
wp 97.22.doc Singh and Narinder Singh (supra) . Considering the fact that dispute between the parties has been resolved, there is no need to continue with the criminal prosecution. In order to ensure that justice is served, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned FIR. The consent affidavit submitted by Respondents No. 2 supports the prayer to quash the FIR. As such, and based on the facts mentioned above, the impugned FIR No. 427 of 2021, registered with Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai against the Petitioners needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned FIR No. 427/2021 dated 18 November 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 o f the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside, subject to condition that Petitioners and Respondent No.2 to deposit costs of Rs.50,000/- each with High Court Legal Services Authority within three weeks of this order being uploaded.
8.Rule is made absolute in these terms, and this Petition is
disposed of subject to payment of costs as directed above.
R. N. LADDHA, J. NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Lata.S.Panjwani, P.S.
Page No. 4 of 4 ______________________________________________ 5 July 2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR under Sections 406, 420, and 34 of the IPC should be quashed in light of the parties reaching an amicable settlement?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶25
Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab & Anr. 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh v. State of PunjabExplained¶25
Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Punjab and Anr. 2 (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Hari Bhachubhai Mujat
Bachubhai Dharmashi
Mukesh Patel
State of Maharashtra
Dulal Chandra Saha
Nitin W. Sambre
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court