Pritesh Ramdas Manjrekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:30450-DB

¶2

DDR 38. WP 5737-24.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

	CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 57	37 O	F 2024
1)	Pritesh Ramdas Manjrekar	)
	Age : 40, Occ : Business	)
	Residing at : B-101, Fressia Building No.2,	)
	Rande Road, Near Bank of India,	)
	Navagaon Dahisar West,	)
	Maharashtra 400 068.	)
2)	Rohit Bharat Korde	)
	Age : 38, Occ : Business Residing at :- A/1, Vishwabharti	) )
	Pramila Nagar Pada BB Marg Dahisar West Maharashtra 400 068.	) )
3)	Rohit Sudharkar Hegde	)
	Age:45, Occ: Unemployed,	)
	Residing at: A-03, 701-702, Lok Nirman	)
	Heights, Khar West, Dr. Ambedkar Road,	)
	Khar West, Mumbai 400 052.	)	..Petitioners
	Vs.
1)	The State Of Maharashtra	)
	(Through Oshiwara Police Station)	)
2)	Puja Bidyaranjan Biswas	)
	Age: 26, Occ : Business	)
	Pabna Colony Uttar Chakdah Nadia	)
	West Bengal 741222	)	..Respondents

¶6

1/5

¶7

DDR 38. WP 5737-24.doc

¶8

Ms. Drishti Khurana for Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶10

Mr. Devendra Tiwari i/b. Mr. Feroz Khan for Respondent No.2. Mr. Sandeep Patil, API, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai.

¶11

DATE : 15^th July, 2025.

¶12

ORDER (Per : A. S. Gadkari, J.):-

¶13

Leave to amend to delete Paragraph No.2 from Synopsis, granted. Further leave to amend to incorporate the challenge to C.C. No.899/PW/2023, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Andheri, Mumbai, in the pleadings and prayer clauses, granted.

¶14

1.1) Amendment be carried out during the course of the day.

¶15

By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners, accused in C.C. No.899/PW/2023, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Andheri, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.1156 of 2022, registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, dated 15^th July 2022, under Sections 457, 380 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, are seeking quashing of the said case with the consent of the Respondent No.2, the informant.

¶16

Ms. Khurana, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted

¶17

2/5

¶18

DDR 38. WP 5737-24.doc

¶19

that, the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have amicably settled their disputes and differences and the Respondent No.2 has given her consent for quashing of the crime in question. She submitted that, the Respondent No.2 has already filed an Affidavit dated 14^th October 2023 duly affirmed before a Notary Public, on record, to that effect.

¶20

Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2 conceded to the fact of filing of Affidavit dated 14^th October 2023 by the Respondent No.2, on record. It is stated therein that, due to the intervention of relatives and friends, the Respondent No.2 and the Petitioners have mutually agreed to resolve their misunderstanding by addressing all issues and working on solution. In Paragraph No.6 thereof, the Respondent No.2 has given her no objection for quashing of the crime in question.

¶21

4.1) Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2 submitted that, though Respondent No.2 is not personally present before this Court, she has given him the authority to admit the contents of her Affidavit dated 14^th October 2023 and her ‘No Objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

¶22

In view thereof, we are inclined to quash C.C. No.899/PW/2023, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Andheri Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.1156 of 2022, registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, dated 15^th July 2022, under Sections 457,

¶23

3/5

¶24

DDR 38. WP 5737-24.doc

¶25

380 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

As we expressed our opinion for quashing of C.C. No.899/PW/2023, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Andheri Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No.1156 of 2022, registered with Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, learned Advocate for Petitioners on instructions submitted that, the Petitioners will pay a cost of Rs.50,000/each, totalling to Rs.1,50,000/-, jointly or severally, to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy & Research Center, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Judgment on the official website of High Court of Bombay. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court.

¶27

6.1) We therefore direct the Petitioners to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/each, totalling to Rs.1,50,000/-, jointly or severally, to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy & Research Center, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of present Judgment on the official website of High Court of Bombay.

¶28

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

¶29

Account Name	: BCMG’S Advocate Academy & Research Center.
Account Number	: 000120110001327
Bank Name	: Bank of India
Branch Name	: Mumbai Main Branch
IFS Code	: BKID0000001
Type of Account	: Current Account

¶30

4/5

¶31

DDR 38. WP 5737-24.doc

¶32

6.3) Petitioners to deposit the said cost within stipulated period as

¶33

noted above and submit receipt(s) of the same in the Registry of this Court.

¶34

In view of the above and subject to payment of cost by the Petitioners as aforestated, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (A1).

¶35

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 trial Court will proceed with the said case expeditiously.

¶36

List the Petition on board on 11^th August 2025, under caption ‘For Reporting Compliance’ of present Order.

¶37

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

¶38

5/5

¶39

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/07/2025 19:29:48

Pritesh Ramdas Manjrekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritesh Ramdas Manjrekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Shekhar Bandu Gholap vs State of Maharashtra at the Instance of Sr P I Shirur Police Station Pune

Sahebrao Sandipan Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijay Vasudev Wadhwa and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohit Arvind Patel vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ogasidha S/O Bhimashankar Kewate and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin Shankar Shinde and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.