Allowed

Alok Amulya Biswas v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2024WP/2839/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused in a cyber-crime complaint sought quashing under Article 226 after amicable settlement with the informant, who consented by affidavit. The High Court quashed the complaint subject to payment of Rs. 25,000 to the Central Police Welfare Fund within two weeks, failing which the petition stands revived.

What did the court decide?

C.C. No. 431/PS/2011 quashed subject to payment of Rs. 25,000 to Central Police Welfare Fund within two weeks; non-payment revives petition.

Alok Amulya Biswas vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-2839-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2839 OF 2024

¶5

Shri. Alok Amulya Biswas …..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Amol Patankar for the Petitioner.

¶9

Smt. Anamika Malhotra, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Ms. Charmaine Bocarro for Respondent No. 2.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 3^rd JULY 2024

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Petitioner, Accused in C.C. No. 431/PS/2011 pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37^th Court at Esplanade, Mumbai, arising out of C. R. No. 9 of 2010 dated 29^th December 2010 registered with Cyber Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 66 & 43(A) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, has filed present Petition by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the said case with the consent of Respondent No. 2, the informant.

¶13

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 have now settled their disputes and

¶14

1/4

¶15

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-2839-2024.doc

¶16

differences amicably and the Respondent No. 2 has given his consent for quashing of the crime in question. He therefore prayed that, the said case may be quashed with the consent of Respondent No. 2.

¶17

Learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 tendered across the bar his Affidavit dated 28^th June 2024, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. In the said Affidavit, the Respondent No. 2 has admitted that with the assistance of well wishers the parties herein have decided to settle their disputes amicably. She submitted that, the parties herein have already executed Consent Terms, annexed to the Petition as Exhibit-B. In paragraph no. 5 thereof, the Respondent No. 2 has given his no objection for quashing of the said case.

¶18

3.1) Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court and through his Advocate reiterates the contents of his Affidavit dated 28^th June 2024 and his ‘no objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶19

In view of the above, we are inclined to quash C.C. No. 431/PS/2011 pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37^th Court at Esplanade, Mumbai, arising out of C. R. No. 9 of 2010 registered with Cyber Police Station, Mumbai.

¶20

As we expressed our opinion for quashing of said C.C. No. 431/PS/2011 pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37^th Court at Esplanade, Mumbai, Mr. Patankar,

¶21

2/4

¶22

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-2839-2024.doc

¶23

learned Advocate for the Petitioner on instructions submitted that, the Petitioner will pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Only) to the Central Police Welfare Fund, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of Bombay High Court. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

¶24

We therefore direct the Petitioner to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/(Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Only) to the Central Police Welfare Fund, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of Bombay High Court.

¶25

6.1) The details of the Bank Account for payment of cost are as under :-

¶26

Bank Name :- Axis Bank Limited Branch Name :- Worli, Mumbai (M.H.), Mumbai-400 025 Account Name :- Central Police Welfare Fund Account Number :- 914010029005759 IFSC Code :- UTIB0000060

¶27

6.2) Petitioner to deposit the said cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Only) within stipulated period as noted above and submit receipt of the same in the Registry of this Court.

¶28

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

¶29

3/4

¶30

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-2839-2024.doc

¶31

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 will proceed with the said C.C. No. 431/PS/2011 expeditiously.

¶32

List the Petition on board on 8^th August 2024 under caption ‘For Reporting Compliance’ of present Order.

¶33

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶34

(A. S. GADKARI, J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.07.16 10:57:09 +0530

¶36

4/4

Alok Amulya Biswas v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Amulya Biswas 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

Sameer Satishrao Karpe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Piyush Birbal Gupta and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shalok Hari Nagpal and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Editors Guild of India vs Union of India

Mohd. Asif Shamim Ahmed Ansari and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Veena Amol Bhurke vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.