Karamveer Samar Vir Arora vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Karamveer Samar Vir Arora vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of MECR no.1 of 2021 and the charge-sheet bearing no.3298/PS/2022 (converted into C.C. no.3298/PS/2022) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 52nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai, in terms of prayer clause (b).

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR/MECR no.1 of 2021 and the charge-sheet bearing no.3298/PS/2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 52nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai ought to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.

Court's answer

The differences between the parties stand amicably settled and Respondent no.2, through affidavits dated 11th July 2025 and 3rd February 2026 tendered by his advocate, has recorded no objection to the quashing of the MECR; he remained present in Court and was identified by his advocate.

Ratio / Principle

On the amicable settlement satisfying the parameters indicated in Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), quashing MECR no.1 of 2021 and the charge-sheet converted into C.C. no.3298/PS/2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 52nd Court, Kurla.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of MECR no.1 of 2021 dated 2nd January 2021 (FIR, Mankhurd Police Station, arising from an incident dated 27th March 2019 against Respondent no.2) and the consequent charge-sheet bearing no.3298/PS/2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 52nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai. The parties having amicably settled their differences, Respondent no.2 having tendered affidavits dated 11th July 2025 and 3rd February 2026 recording no objection to quashing, and Respondent no.2 being present in Court and identified by his advocate, the Court, relying on Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 on exercise of inherent power to quash criminal cases upon amicable settlement serving the interest of justice, allowed the petition in terms of prayer clause (b) and quashed the FIR/MECR and charge-sheet.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6409 OF 2024

Karamveer Samar Vir Arora, ] R/o. Deonar, Mumbai – 400088. ] .. Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra, ] Through Mankhurd Police Station ] 2. Sudesh Vitthal Kondvilkar, ] R/o. Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400091. ] ..Respondents

Mr. Anukul Seth with Ms. Aayushya Geruja and Mr. Saajid Sheikh, Advocates, i/by Kaleeyantey Law Firm, for the Petitioner.

Mr. S.A. Karmarkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1State of Maharashtra.

Mr. Anand Palande, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Sudesh Vitthal Kondvilkar, Respondent No.2 is present in Court.

CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 11^TH MARCH 2026.

P.C. :

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of MECR no.1 of 2021 dated 2^nd January 2021 and the subsequent charge-sheet bearing no.3298/PS/2022

filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 52^nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai.

Due to differences and disputes between the parties arising out of an incident dated 27^th March 2019, a First Information Report dated 2^nd

1/3

84-WP-6409-2024.doc

Dixit

January 2021 bearing MECR no.1 of 2021 was registered with the Mankhurd Police Station, Mumbai against Respondent no.2. A chargesheet bearing no.3298/PS/2022 has been filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 52^nd Court, Kurla, Mumbai.

The differences between the parties have now been amicably settled. Mr. Palande, the learned advocate for Respondent no.2 has tendered affidavits dated 11^th July 2025 and 3^rd February 2026 which record that Respondent no.2 has no objection to the quashing of the said MECR. He tenders a copy of the Aadhaar card of Respondent no.2. The said affidavits along with a copy of the Aadhaar card are taken on record and shall form part of the present proceedings. Respondent no.2 is present in the Court and is identified by his learned advocate.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 while dealing with an FIR for non-compoundable offences has held that the High Court can invoke its inherent power to quash its criminal cases provided that the court is satisfied that an amicable settlement is reached which serves the interest of justice, the parties have settled their dispute, and affidavits have been filed to that effect. Thus, Criminal Writ Petition no.6409 of 2026 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads as under:-

2/3

84-WP-6409-2024.doc

Dixit

“(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the above petition and/or by way of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of like nature may be pleased to quash the charge-sheet bearing MECR no.01/2021 (FIR no.) converted into C.C. no.3298/PS/2022 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 52^nd Court, Kurla at Mumbai.”

[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]

Digitally signed by SNEHA SNEHAABHAY ABHAY DIXIT 84-WP-6409-2024.doc DIXIT Date:2026.03.13 17:18:32 +0530

3/3

Dixit