Ramesh Bhagia vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Mr. Prasanna A. Bhangale for Applicant/s Smt. Prajakta P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Siddhikesh Ghosalkar for Respondent No.2 Mr. Ashok Bhagia present in person.

¶16

Mr. Machhindra Sanap, PSI, Mahim Police Station, Mumbai, present.

¶17

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 28^th July 2025.

¶18

P.C. :

¶19

By these Applications under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

¶20

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Applicant’s, accused in C.R. No.

¶21

0626 of 2024, dated 15^th December 2024, registered with Mahim Police Station, Mumbai, punishable under Sections 340(2), 336(3), 336(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, are seeking the relief of

¶22

quashing of the said crime with the consent of Respondent No.2, the

¶23

1/5

¶24

dtg 29 and 30-Apl-649 and 650 -2025.doc

¶25

informant.

¶26

At the outset, Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for the Applicant’s submitted that, investigation of the crime is not yet completed and the police have not filed charge-sheet. The said statement is accepted.

¶27

Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for the Applicant’s on instructions submitted that, the Applicant Ramesh, is the real brother of Respondent No.2, Ashok and the Applicant Pooja is his niece. There was family disputes inter se and over certain properties. That, in the interregnum, the parties herein have decided to settle the matter amicably due to the intervention of other family members and Respondent No.2 is now giving his consent for quashing of the crime in question. He therefore prayed that, the said crime may be quashed with the consent of Respondent No.2.

¶28

Mr. Ghosalkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that, he has already filed on record the Affidavits dated 16^th July 2025, duly affirmed before a Notary Public. It is admitted therein that, the Applicant Ramesh is his brother and Applicant Pooja is his niece. That, they have agreed to amicably resolve the disputes between themselves. In para No.4 thereof, Respondent No.2 has given his no objection for quashing of the said crime in question.

¶29

4.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through his Advocate reiterates the contents of his Affidavit dated 16^th July 2025 and his ‘No Objection’ for quashing of the crime in-question.

¶30

2/5

¶31

dtg 29 and 30-Apl-649 and 650 -2025.doc

¶32

In view of the above, we are inclined to quash C.R. No. 0626 of 2024, dated 15^th December 2024, registered with Mahim Police Station, Mumbai, punishable under Sections 340(2), 336(3), 336(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

¶33

As we expressed our opinion for quashing of said crime in question, Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for the Applicant’s on instructions submitted that, the Applicant Ramesh and Pooja will voluntarily pay a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- each totalling to Rs. 3,00,000/- jointly or severally to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy and Research Center, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of the present Order on the official website of the High Court of Bombay. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

¶34

As the Respondent No.2 is successful in bringing the Applicant’s for amicable settlement due to the lodgment of the present crime. Mr. Ghosalkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 on instructions submitted that, Respondent No.2 will also voluntarily pay a cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy and Research Center, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of the present Order on the official website of the High Court of Bombay. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

¶35

7.1) We therefore direct the Applicant Ramesh and Pooja to pay a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- each totalling to Rs. 3,00,000/- jointly or severally and

¶36

3/5

¶37

dtg 29 and 30-Apl-649 and 650 -2025.doc

¶38

Respondent No.2 to pay a cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy and Research Center, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of the present Order on the official website of the High Court of Bombay.

¶39

7.2) Details of the bank Account for payment of cost are as under:-

¶40

Account Name	:-	BCMG’S Advocate Academy & Research
		Center
Account Number	:-	000120110001327
Bank Name	:-	Bank of India
Branch Name	:-	Mumbai Main
IFSC Code	:-	BKID0000001
Type of Account	:-	Current A/c

¶41

7.3) Applicant’s so also Respondent No.2 to pay aforestated cost within stipulated period as noted above and submit its receipt(s) in the Registry of this Court.

¶42

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

¶43

It is made clear that, if the cost is not paid within stipulated period as mentioned above, Applications shall stand revived automatically and in that event, the Investigating Agency shall complete the investigation expeditiously.

¶44

4/5

¶45

dtg 29 and 30-Apl-649 and 650 -2025.doc

¶46

List the Applications on board on 8^th September 2025, under the caption ‘For Reporting Compliance’ of present Order.

¶47

( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶48

5/5

Ramesh Bhagia v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Bhagia v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Narendrasingh Balajisingh Chauhan and Anr. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (3) (2) (Tds) and Anr.

Rohit Arvind Patel vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanobar Rajesaheb Mashalkar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kunal @ Abhishek @ Rahul Barkya Patel vs the State of Maharashtra

Balkrushna Parmeshwar Gurav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kamal Senthilvel Tevar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.