Allowed

Dipesh Rajendra Shah and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2024WP/1872/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1872 of 2024 (decided 20 June 2024): quashing of criminal case on amicable settlement/compromise with consent of complainant-victim; inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC with Article 226; offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC; neighbour dispute and scuffle; CR No.319 of 2021, Marine Drive Police Station; CC No. 422/PW/2023, 8

What did the court decide?

Quashing of CC No. 422/PW/2023 (arising out of CR No.319 of 2021, Marine Drive Police Station) in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- cost to the Advocates' Association of We

Dipesh Rajendra Shah and Anr. vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:25195-DB

¶2

rdg 27-wp-1872-2024 .doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1872 OF 2024

¶5

Dipesh Rajendra Shah & Ors. …..Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Manish M Bohra for the Petitioners. Mr. A. S. Shalgaonkar APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Anukul B. Seth, for Respondent No.2. Mr. Anbhule, PSI, Marain Drive Police Station is present.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 20^th JUNE, 2024.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing of CC No. 422/PW/2023 pending on the file of 8^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade, Mumbai, arising out of CR No.319 of 2021 registered with Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai for the offenses punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the consent of Respondent No.2-the victim.

¶12

Mr. Bohra, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that, the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 are neighbourers and on trivial grounds a dispute had arisen which ensued in a scuffle, ultimately giving rise to lodgment of present crime by the Respondent No.2. He submitted

¶13

1/4

¶14

rdg 27-wp-1872-2024 .doc

¶15

that, the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have now amicably settled their disputes and the Respondent No.2 has given her consent for quashing of the crime in question. He therefore prayed that, the said crime may be quashed with the consent of Respondent No.2.

¶16

Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 tendered across the bar her Affidavit dated 20^th June 2024 duly affirmed before a Notary Public. In the said Affidavit, the Respondent No.2 has admitted the fact of resolvement of all their differences and disputes amicably and is moving ahead in life without any grievance and grudges. In paragraph 5 thereof, the Respondent No.2 has given her no objection for the prayer of the Petitioners of quashing of the said case.

¶17

3.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 20^th June 2024 and her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the said entire case.

¶18

In view thereof, we are inclined to quash CC No. 422/PW/2023 pending on the file of 8^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade, Mumbai arising out of CR No.319 of 2021 registered with Marine Drive Police Station for the offenses punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

As we expressed our opinion for quashing of CC No. 422/PW/2023 pending on the file of 8^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade, Mumbai arising out of CR No.319 of 2021

¶20

2/4

¶21

rdg 27-wp-1872-2024 .doc

¶22

registered with Marine Drive Police Station, Mr. Bohra, learned Advocate for Petitioners on instructions submitted that, the Petitioners will pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Advocates’ Association of Western India Generation Next Fund, Mumbai, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of High Court of Bombay. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

¶23

In view thereof, we direct the Petitioners to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Advocates’ Association of Western India Generation Next Fund, Mumbai, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of High Court of Bombay.

¶24

6.1) Details of the bank account for payment of cost are as under :-

¶25

	Account Name	:-	Advocates Association of Western India Generation Next.
	Account Numbe	r :-	000110110007807.
	Bank Name	:-	Bank of India.
	Branch Name	:-	Mumbai Main.
	IFSC Code	:-	BKID0000001.
6.2)	Petitioners to	deposit	the said cost of Rs.5 0 ,000/- within
stipulated	period as noted	above	and submit receipt of the same in the
Registry of	this Court.

¶26

In view of above and subject to payment of cost, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a).

¶27

3/4

¶28

rdg 27-wp-1872-2024 .doc

¶29

It is made clear that, if the cost is not paid within stipulated period as mentioned above, the Petition shall stand revived automatically and in that event, the trial Court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously.

¶30

List the Petition on board on 26th July 2024, under caption ‘for reporting compliance’ of present Order.

¶31

(DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶32

4/4

¶33

Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/06/2024 12:46:45

Dipesh Rajendra Shah and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipesh Rajendra Shah and Anr. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahadeo Narayan Nare vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Hindurao Pisal and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Himmatrao Anandrao Jadhav and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shehbaz Abdul Rahim Panja and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shital Dinesh Panchal vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harishbhai Dhanjibhai Parmar vs Union of India through CBI Acb Mumbai