Allowed

Dashraj Egraj Modak and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2024WP/3857/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR arising from property and partnership-firm disputes with respondent No.2. Following amicable settlement and the informant's consent affidavit, the High Court quashed the FIR, subject to costs paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.804 of 2023 quashed in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to payment of costs within two weeks; petitions otherwise allowed.

Dashraj Egraj Modak and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:35883-DB

¶2

rdg 19-70-wp-3842-3843-3857-2024-O.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3842 OF 2024

¶6

Rahul Girish Patel, Age 36, Occupation: Business, Having his permanent residential address at F/603, Abhishek Apartment, New Versova Link Road, Four Bungalows, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 053. …..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra, Through Tilak Nagar Police Station, Tilak Nagar, Mumbai – 400 089.

¶9

Chaitanya Jatin Mehta, Adult, Occupation : Business, Residing at 1301, Lotus Heights, 15^th Road, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071. …..Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3843 OF 2024 Pravin Girish Chamaria, Age 39, Occupation: Business, Having his permanent residential address at F/603, Abhishek Apartment, New Versova Link Road, Four Bungalows, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 053. …..Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Tilak Nagar Police Station, Tilak Nagar, Mumbai – 400 089.

¶12

Chaitanya Jatin Mehta, Adult, Occupation : Business, Residing at 1301, Lotus Heights, 15^th Road, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071. …..Respondents

¶13

1/6

¶14

rdg 19-70-wp-3842-3843-3857-2024-O.doc

¶15

WITH

¶16

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3857 OF 2024

¶17

Dashraj Egraj Modak Aged about 40 years, Service, Residing at Flat No.102, Bldg. No.36, A Wing, Sadanand CHS Ltd., Tilaknagar, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089. 2. Egraj Nathu Modak, Aged about 69 years, Retired, Residing at Flat No.102, Bldg. No.36, A Wing, Sadanand CHS Ltd., Tilaknagar, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089. …..Petitioners Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Tilaknagar Police Station. 2. Chaitanya Jatin Mehta, Age: unknown, Occu: Business, Residing at 1301, Lotus Heights, 15^th Road, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071. …..Respondents

¶18

Mr. Rutvij Solanki, i/b. Mr. Shshank Shubham with Ms. Prachi Patel, for the Petitioners in WP/3842/2024 and WP/3843/2024. Mr. Ajit Manwani with Mr. Faisal Vora, i/b. A. & A. Legal, for the Petitioners in WP/3857/2024.

¶19

Mr. S. A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent No.1-State in WP/3842/2024 and WP/3843/2024.

¶20

Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar APP, for Respondent No.1-State in WP/3857/ 2024.

¶21

Mr. Rickin Dang, i/b. Ganesh & Co., for Respondent No.2 in all Petitions. Mr. Rajdatta Kamble, API, Tilak Nagar Police Station present.

¶22

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND

¶23

DR NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 4^th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶24

P.C.:

¶25

The Petitioners in all three Petitions seek to quash FIR No.804

¶26

2/6

¶27

rdg 19-70-wp-3842-3843-3857-2024-O.doc

¶28

of 2023 dated 11^th November 2023 registered with Tilak Nagar Police Station for offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

¶29

The Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 are businessmen. The disagreement inter se between them are pertaining to certain property disputes as well as the disputes relating to their Partnership Firm. The disagreement and discord between then led to registration of the impugned F.I.R. by the Respondent No.2 herein against all the Petitioners.

¶30

Mr. Rutvij Solanki, learned counsel appears for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3842 of 2024 and Writ Petition No.3843 of 2024 and Mr. Ajeet Manwani appears for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3857 of 2024. Mr. Rickin Dang, learned counsel appears for the Respondent No.2 in all Petitions. Mr. S. A. Karmakar, learned APP represents the State in Writ Petitions No.3842 of 2024 and 3843 of 2024, while Mr. A. S. Shalgaonkar, learned APP represents the State in Writ Petition No.3857 of 2024.

¶31

The counsels of both the Petitioners as well as the Respondent No.2 state that, considering the decision of the parties to resolve their dispute by amicable settlement, Respondent No.2 has filed his consent Affidavit dated 14^th August 2024 duly affirmed before a Notary Public. He states that, he filed the FIR since money was due and payable to his Partnership Firm for a Flat wrongly sold by the Petitioners in W.P.No.3842 of 2024 and W. P. No.3843 of 2024 to the Petitioners in W. P. No.3857 of 2024.

¶32

3/6

¶33

rdg 19-70-wp-3842-3843-3857-2024-O.doc

¶34

However, now the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and he has received the amount due to him. In paragraph No.5 of the Affidavit, the Respondent No.2 stated that, he has given his consent for quashing the said F.I.R. and stated that, he does not wish to proceed further with the same.

¶35

Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and through his counsel reiterates the statements made by him in the Affidavit. The learned APP states that, the charge sheet has not been filed as yet in terms of Order dated 9^th July 2024 passed by this Court. We accept the statements.

¶36

Considering the facts in the present case and the consent Affidavit of Respondent No.2, we are inclined to quash FIR No.804 of 2023 dated 11^th November 2023 registered with Tilak Nagar Police Station.

¶37

As we expressed our opinion for quashing the said FIR, Mr. Rutvij Solanki and Mr. Ajeet Manwani, learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners on instructions submitted that, the Petitioners will pay Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each, totaling to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and Mr. Rickin Dang, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2 on instructions submitted that, the Respondent No.2 will also pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand 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.

¶38

4/6

¶39

rdg 19-70-wp-3842-3843-3857-2024-O.doc

¶40

In view thereof, we direct the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 to pay the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) respectively 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 High Court of Bombay.

¶41

8.1) The details of the Bank Account for payment of cost are as

¶42

under :-

¶43

Bank Name	:- Canara Bank
Branch Name	:- South Block, Defence Headquarters,
	New Delhi – 110 011
Account Name	:- Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund
Account Number	:- 90552010165915
IFSC Code	:- CNRB0019055

¶44

8.2) Petitioners to deposit the said cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

¶45

One Lakh Only) and Respondent No.2 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.

¶46

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

¶47

It is made clear that, if the cost is not paid by either of the parties within stipulated period as mentioned above, the Petitions stand

¶48

5/6

¶49

rdg 19-70-wp-3842-3843-3857-2024-O.doc

¶50

revived automatically and in that event, the Investigating Officer shall complete the investigation of the present crime expeditiously

¶51

List the Petitions on board on 24th September 2024, under caption ‘for reporting compliance’ of present Order.

¶52

(DR NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶53

6/6

¶54

Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/09/2024 14:38:07

Dashraj Egraj Modak and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashraj Egraj Modak and Anr. v. the 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

Sachin Nagnath Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raghunath Rajaram Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Xyz vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. the Principal Secretay

Manoj Sambhaji Sawant and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vaishali Dinesh More vs Shridhar Narayan Rane and Ors.

Nisha Virendra Singh vs State of Maharashtra