Allowed

Pankaj Deepak Chilap v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Jul 2024WP/2910/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash a Chembur Police Station crime registered against the petitioner under Sections 326, 323, 506(2) and 504 IPC. Victim consented by affidavit; Section 326 dropped in favour of Section 324. Court quashed the crime subject to payment of Rs.50,000 cost.

What did the court decide?

C.R.No.61 of 2024 with Chembur Police Station quashed in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to payment of Rs.50,000 to Central Police Welfare Fund within two weeks.

Pankaj Deepak Chilap vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

sns 18-wp-2910-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2910 OF 2024

¶5

Pankaj Deepak Chilap …..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Balwant V. Salunkhe, i/by Mr. Ramesh Jadhav, for the Petitioner. Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Adithya R. Iyer, with Mr. Advait Helekar, for Respondent No.2. Ms. Nafisa Hanif Ravuthar, Respondent No.2 present.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 19^th JULY, 2024.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Petitioner, accused in C.R.No.61 of 2024 registered with Chembur Police Station, Mumbai dated 16^th February 2024 under Sections 326, 323, 506(2) and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has filed present Petition for quashing of the said crime with the consent of Respondent No.2, the Victim.

¶12

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 were having friendly relations and also had consensual physical relations on earlier occasions. That, present crime is outcome of an alleged fight amongst themselves. That, the Petitioner and

¶13

1/4

¶14

sns 18-wp-2910-2024.doc

¶15

the Respondent No.2 have now resolved their disputes and differences amicably and the Respondent No.2 has given her consent for quashing of the crime in question.

¶16

Learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 submitted that, the Respondent No.2 has filed an Affidavit dated 5^th July 2024, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. In the said Affidavit, the Respondent No.2 has admitted the fact of their friendly relations and amicable resolvement of their disputes and differences. In paragraph 7 thereof, she has given her no objection for quashing of the crime in question.

¶17

3.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through her Advocate reiterates the contents of her Affidavit dated 5^th July 2024 and her ‘no objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶18

Record of the investigation indicates that, though initially offence was registered under Section 326 of the IPC, the medical certificate issued by Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Shatabdi Hospital, Gowandi, Mumbai mentions that, the Respondent No.2 suffered superficial burns in the alleged assault and the said injuries were simple in nature. The Investigating Officer, therefore, submitted report before the learned Magistrate to drop Section 326 and instead apply Section 324 of the IPC to the present crime. Thus, the offence as alleged against the Petitioner today is under Section 324 read with other sections of the IPC as noted above.

¶19

2/4

¶20

sns 18-wp-2910-2024.doc

¶21

In view of the above, we are inclined to quash C.R.No.61 of 2024 dated 16^th February 2024 registered with Chembur Police Station, Mumbai.

¶22

As we expressed our opinion for quashing of the said C.R.No.61 of 2024 dated 16^th February 2024 registered with Chembur Police Station, Mumbai, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on instructions submitted that, the Petitioner will pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Central Police Welfare Fund, Maharashtra State, 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.

¶23

We therefore direct the Petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/to the Central Police Welfare Fund, Maharashtra State, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of Bombay High Court.

¶24

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

¶25

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

3/4

¶28

sns 18-wp-2910-2024.doc

¶29

7.2) Petitioner to deposit the said cost within stipulated period as noted

¶30

above and submit receipt of the same in the Registry of this Court.

¶31

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

¶32

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 Investigating Officer will complete the investigation of the present crime expeditiously.

¶33

List the Petition on board on 16th August 2024, under caption ‘for reporting compliance’ of present Order.

¶34

(DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶35

(A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2024.07.26 21:27:40 +0530

¶37

4/4

Pankaj Deepak Chilap v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Deepak Chilap 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

Azhar Ali Shabbir Hussain vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jyotirling Baburao Kolhapure vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhushan Sadashiv Raut vs State of Maharashtra

Ankit S/O Surendra Kumar Vyas vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Praveen Thimappa Kotian and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kalpana Shahajirao Gawade and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra