Allowed

Manjusha Ishwar Parmar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2024WP/3714/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of a complaint registered for cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a property sale dispute. The petition was permitted based on a police affidavit of the complainant agreeing to withdraw the FIR, contingent upon parties paying court costs to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of C.R. No. 118 of 2024 allowed subject to payment of costs to Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund by Petitioners and Respondent No. 2.

Manjusha Ishwar Parmar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-3714-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3714 OF 2024

¶5

1.	Manjusha Ishwar Parmar, Age : 70 years, Occupation:Business, Residing at : 7/8/9B, B. J. Road, Near Woodland Hotel, Parmar Paradise, Pune – 411001.
2.	Mr. Ishwar Chandulal Parmar, Age : 76 years, Occupation:Business, Residing at : 7/8/9B, B. J. Road, Near Woodland Hotel, Parmar Paradise, Pune – 411001. …..Petitioners
	Vs.
1.	The State of Maharashtra, (Through Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur.)
2.	Manoj Kantilal Shah, 26/5, Civil Line, Sat Road, Solapur, Sadar Bazar, Solapur City, Maharashtra, India. …..Respondents
Mr. Mr. Mr.	Saket Mone i/b Vidhii Partners for the Petitioners. Ajay Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Varun Veepin Thokal for Respondent No. 2.
	CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 29^thAUGUST 2024.
P.C.	:-
1)	Petitioners have filed the present Petition invoking jurisdiction
of	this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking

¶6

1/5

¶7

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-3714-2024.doc

¶8

quashing of the C. R. No. 118 of 2024 dated 22^nd February 2024 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur City for the offence punishable under Sections 406 & 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

The dispute between the parties arose on account of a breach of contract of sale of property whereby despite repetitive requests made by the Respondent No. 2, the Petitioners failed to execute a sale deed nor did they refund the amount of consideration paid by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioners. This led to the filing of the subject F.I.R.

¶10

Mr. Saket Mone, learned Advocate appears for the Petitioners. Mr. Varun Thokal, learned Advocate appears for the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Ajay Patil, learned A.P.P. represents the State.

¶11

Mr. Thokal, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2 tendered across the bar an Affidavit of 29^th August 2024, duly affirmed by the Respondent No.2 before a Notary Public. It is stated therein that, Respondent No. 2 has agreed to withdraw the F.I.R. filed by him against the Petitioners and he does not wish to prosecute any proceedings against the Petitioners. In paragraph no. 4 thereof, the Respondent No. 2 has stated that, the differences between the Petitioners and him are mutually and amicably settled and in furtherance of amicable resolution of issues between them by filing Consent Terms, he has given his no objection for quashing of the crime in question. In the proceedings of Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1019 of 2024, the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2

¶12

2/5

¶13

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-3714-2024.doc

¶14

have filed the Consent Terms. Even in the said Consent Terms the Respondent No. 2 has given his no objection for quashing of the crime in question. The copy of Consent Terms dated 12^th August 2024 is annexed to the Petition.

¶15

Although the Respondent No. 2 was not present in the Court, Mr. Thokal on instructions reiterates the statements made in the affidavit. Mr. Patil states that, till date the chargesheet is not filed. We accept the statements made in the Affidavit submitted on 29^th August 2024.

¶16

In view thereof, we are inclined to quash the C. R. No. 118 of 2024 dated 22^nd February 2024 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur City.

¶17

As we expressed our opinion for quashing of said C. R. No. 118 of 2024 dated 22^nd February 2024 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur City, Mr. Saket Mone, learned Advocate for the Petitioners on instructions submitted that, the Petitioners will pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each totalling to Rs. 2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only), jointly or severally, to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties 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.

¶18

As the Respondent No. 2 is successful in bringing the Petitioners for settlement by lodgment of the present crime, Mr. Varun

¶19

3/5

¶20

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-3714-2024.doc

¶21

Thokal, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 on instructions submitted that, Respondent No. 2 will also pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh Only) to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties 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.

¶22

We therefore direct the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 to pay the aforementioned costs, to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Order on the official website of Bombay High Court.

¶23

9.1) The details of the Bank Account for payment of costs are as

¶24

under :-

¶25

Bank Name :- Canara Bank Branch Name :- South Block, Defence Headquarters, New Delhi – 110 011

¶26

Account Name :- Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund Account Number :- 90552010165915 IFSC Code :- CNRB0019055

¶27

9.2) Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 to deposit the said cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each, within stipulated period as noted above and submit receipt of the same in the Registry of this Court.

¶28

4/5

¶29

Gitalaxmi 20-wp-3714-2024.doc

¶30

In view of the above and subject to payment of costs by the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶31

It is made clear that, if the cost is not paid within stipulated period as mentioned above by either of the parties, the Petition shall stand revived automatically and in that event, the Investigating Officer will complete the investigation of the present crime expeditiously.

¶32

List the Petition on board on 19th September 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: 2024.09.04 09:55:41 +0530

¶36

5/5

Manjusha Ishwar Parmar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjusha Ishwar Parmar 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

Vishnu Krushna Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lal Singh Maharaj Singh Thakur and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadik @ Sangram Govind Shirtode vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachinam Chingaya Guruswami vs the State of Maharashtra

Rasika Ramesh Salve @ Rasika Indrasen Misal vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gopal Raja Nadar and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.