Chitra Vishal Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and Ar — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

Chitra Vishal Pawar vs State of Maharashtra and Ar — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (aa), granting quashing of C.C. No. 1099/PW/2024 (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai) arising out of C.R. No. 423 of 2024, with the consent/no objection of Respondent No.2.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding C.C. No. 1099/PW/2024 (arising out of C.R. No. 423 of 2024, Parksite Police Station, Mumbai) should be quashed, in view of the amicable settlement between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.2's no objection.

Court's answer

In view of the amicable settlement, the Consent Terms, and Respondent No.2's no objection (affidavit dated 14th February 2025, reiterated personally in Court), the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (aa), effectuating the quashing of C.C. No. 1099/PW/2024 arising out of C.R. No. 423 of 2024 with the consent of Respondent No.2.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 858 of 2025, decided 13th August 2025 (A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.). The Petitioner, wife of Respondent No.2, sought quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of C.C. No. 1099/PW/2024, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (31st Court), Vikhroli, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No. 423 of 2024 dated 28th May 2024 registered with Parksite Police Station, Mumbai, punishable under Sections 406 IPC and Sections 43(b), 43(f) and 66C of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. The parties had settled their disputes amicably and filed Consent Terms in WP No. 3869 of 2024 on 29th January 2025, recorded by the learned single Judge's order of even date. Respondent No.2, by Affidavit dated 14th February 2025 (paras 7 and 11), recorded the settlement and gave his no objection to quashing, and reiterated the same personally in Court through his Advocate. Leave to amend the prayer clauses to incorporate the challenge to the C.C. was granted. Holding: Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (aa).

dtg 24-Wp-858-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 858 OF 2025

Chitra Vishal Pawar … Petitioner

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

… Respondents

Mr. Ajit Kenjale a/w Mr. Suraj Bansode i/b Mr. Sohil Gulabani a/w Mr. Sai Rajendra Kadam for Petitioner.

Smt. Prajakta P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Mr. Nitesh Wable i/b Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Respondent No.2. P.I. P.S. Sanap, Parksite Police Station, Mumbai, present.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 13^th August 2025.

P.C. :

Leave to amend to incorporate challenge to C.C. No.

1099/PW/2024, pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (31^st Court) Vikhroli, Mumbai, in prayer clauses, granted.

1.1) Amendment be carried out forthwith and in any event during the course of the day.

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner (wife of Respondent No.2) is seeking quashing of C.C. No. 1099/PW/2024, pending on the file of learned Additional Chief Judicial

1/2

dtg 24-Wp-858-2025.doc

Magistrate (31^st Court) Vikhroli, Mumbai, arising out of C.R. No. 423 of 2024, dated 28^th May 2024, registered with Parksite Police Station, Mumbai, punishable under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 43(b), 43(f) and 66C of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (I.T. Act), with the consent of Respondent No.2.

Mr. Wable, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submitted that, Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have settled their disputes and differences amicably and have filed Consent Terms in WP No. 3869 of 2024 on 29^th January 2025. Order dated 29^th January 2025, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court records the same. He submitted that, Respondent No.2 has already filed on record his Affidavit dated 14^th February 2025. The fact of amicable settlement and filing of Consent Terms are mentioned in para No.7 of the said Affidavit. In para No.11 thereof, Respondent No.2 has given his no objection for quashing of the present crime.

3.1) Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and through his Advocate reiterates the contents of his Affidavit dated 14^th February 2025 and his ‘No Objection’ for quashing of the crime in question.

In view of the above, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (aa).

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

2/2