Allowed

Nitin Alias Dattatray Chindhu Kalate v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Quashing of FIR – Amicable settlement between accused and informant

Bombay HC10 Jul 2024WP/831/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Writ Petition 831 of 2024 (decided 10 July 2024; Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ.): quashing of crime CR No.0607/2023, Wakad Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, under Sections 465/467/468/471 IPC (forgery-related offences), on petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC founded on amicable settlement, informant's affidavit of no objec

What did the court decide?

Quashing of CR No.0607 of 2023 registered with Wakad Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,50,000/- (Petitioner) and Rs.50,000/- (R

Nitin Alias Dattatray Chindhu Kalate vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Osk 14-Wp-831-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 831 OF 2024

¶5

Nitin alias Dattatray Chindhu Kalate	] … Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra &	]
2. Hanumant Shankar Bhillare	] … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe for Petitioner. Mr. V.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Chaitanya Mulawkar for Respondent No.2. A.P.I. Mr. Nilesh Nalawade, Wakad Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, present.

¶7

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 10^th July 2024.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Petitioner, accused in CR No.0607 of 2023, dated 28^th June 2023,

¶10

registered with Wakad Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the said crime, with the consent of Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶11

Mr. Salunkhe, learned Advocate for Petitioner submitted that, now the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have settled their disputes and differences amicably and the Petitioner has complied with his part of

¶12

1/4

¶13

Osk 14-Wp-831-2024.doc

¶14

obligation. That, the Petitioner has returned the said amount alleged to have been involved in the present crime to the Respondent No.2 and has also executed a Partition Deed of their Partnership Firm. That, the Respondent No.2 therefore has given his consent for quashing of the crime in question and therefore it may be quashed.

¶15

Mr. Mulawkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 tendered across the bar his Affidavit dated 2^nd July 2024 duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is stated therein that, he has amicably settled the matter with the Petitioner and on 9^th November 2023 has executed registered Partnership Deed cum Consent Terms. In para No.6 thereof, he has given his ‘no objection’ for quashing of the subject crime.

¶16

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

¶17

In view thereof, we are inclined to quash CR No.0607 of 2023, dated 28^th June 2023, registered with Wakad Police Station, PimpriChinchwad, Pune.

¶18

As we expressed our opinion for quashing of said CR No.0607 of 2023 registered with Wakad Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, learned Advocate for Petitioner on instructions submitted that, the Petitioner will pay a cost of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Central Police Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of Order. The said statement is

¶19

2/4

¶20

Osk 14-Wp-831-2024.doc

¶21

accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

¶22

5.1) As the Respondent No.2 is successful in bringing the Petitioner to have compromise by lodgment of present crime, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 on instructions submitted that, the Respondent No.2 will also pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Central Police Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of Order. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

¶23

We therefore direct the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 to pay a cost of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively 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 High Court of Bombay.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

6.2) Petitioner and Respondent No.2 to deposit the said cost of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively, within stipulated period as noted above and submit receipt of the same in the Registry of this Court.

¶27

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

¶28

3/4

¶29

Osk 14-Wp-831-2024.doc

¶30

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 shall complete the investigation of the present crime expeditiously.

¶31

List the Petition on board on 5th August 2024, under caption ‘for reporting compliance’ of present Order.

¶32

( DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. )

¶33

( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶34

Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR OMKAR KUMBHAKARN SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2024.07.15 13:04:45 +0530

¶35

4/4

Nitin Alias Dattatray Chindhu Kalate v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Alias Dattatray Chindhu Kalate 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

Rohan Rajendra Bhosale and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohd Sakib Naseem Ansari and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahendran Ramaiyya vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Babumiyan Lal Ahmed and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kunal Bhore Joshi @ Kunal Gurunandan Joshi and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ekta Rawat vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.