Hetal Dhansukhlal Gohil vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred by the Petitioner for quashing the FIR bearing No. 04 of 2024 registered with L. T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai (Impugned FIR) and the Chargesheet arising out of the impugned FIR.

¶20

The Petitioner is present in the Court and is identified by her Advocate Mr. Aditya Parmar. He tenders the Photostat copies of the Identity Card of the Petitioner, which is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification.

¶21

Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and is identified by her Advocate Mr. Advait Helekar. He tenders the Photostat copy of the Identity Card of Respondent No.2, which is taken on record and marked as “X-1 ” for identification.

¶22

Mr. Advait Helekar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, states that the Affidavit dated 20 February

¶23

2

¶24

(911) WP-937.26.DOCX

¶25

2026 affirmed by Respondent No.2 before the Notary Advocate S N Dhange is placed on record, the same is marked as “X-2” for identification.

¶26

Respondent No. 2 states that the said Affidavit (X-2) is filed out of her own free will and without any pressure or coercion from any person. She states that the contents of the Affidavit (X-2) are as per her say. She reiterates her no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶27

Mr. Aditya Parmar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, and Mr. Advait Helekar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, submit that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have amicably resolved their property-related dispute (concerning common spaces in the premises of their residence) and have entered into the Consent Terms, which they executed on 22 December 2025 before Notary Advocate Sheena Chetan Patil, Andheri East, Mumbai. They submit that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 realized that the misunderstanding between them led to the filing of the criminal complaints against each

¶28

3

¶29

(911) WP-937.26.DOCX

¶30

other. They further submit that, being neighbours, they did not want to continue with the discord and thus resolved the matter. They state that Respondent No.2 has given no objection by Affidavit (X-2) for quashing the criminal proceedings. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case and the and Respondent No.2 as neighbours, they request that impugned FIR and the Chargesheet arising out of the impugned FIR be quashed.

¶31

Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned APP for the

¶32

Respondent/State submits that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 having now resolved their private dispute amicably and the Respondent No.2 having given no objection in the Affidavit (X-2) as also the Consent Terms entered into between the parties, he has no objection for quashing of the impugned FIR and the chargesheet arising out of the impugned FIR. He, however, submits that considering the valuable time of the police machinery, as also the Court being taken by the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 to settle a private civil dispute which otherwise did not warrant the

¶33

4

¶34

(911) WP-937.26.DOCX

¶35

filing of any criminal case, exemplary costs may be imposed on the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2.

¶36

Mr. Aditya Parmar and Mr. Advait Helekar, on instructions, submit that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 shall deposit appropriate costs.

¶37

Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the

¶38

submissions of the learned Advocates, the dispute being of a civil nature, the matter being settled between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 in the Affidavit (X-2), and in light of the pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab¹ , Narinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr² and Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State Of Gujarat³ , there is no impediment to allow this Writ Petition.

¶39

In view of the above and subject to Petitioner paying costs of Rs.25,000/- and the Respondent No.2 paying costs of Rs.25,000/- as condition precedence, Criminal Writ Petition

¶40

1 2012 10 SCC 303

¶41

2 2014 6 SCC 466

¶42

3 2017 9 SCC 641

¶43

5

¶44

(911) WP-937.26.DOCX

¶45

No.937 OF 2026 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the impugned FIR and the chargesheet arising out of the impugned FIR are quashed.

¶46

The Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 shall deposit their respective costs in the below mentioned Accounts within a period of three weeks from today and file in the Registry of this Court the compliance affidavit along with the proof of deposit on or before 25 March 2026.

¶47

a] The Petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/in :-

¶48

The High Court Employees Medical Welfare Fund at Mumbai Account No.: 000120110001337 Bank : Bank of India Branch : Mumbai Main IFSC Code : BKID0000001

¶49

b] The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- in :-

¶50

Central Police Welfare Fund Director General MS, Mumbai Account No: 914010029005759 Bank : Axis Bank Limited Branch : Worli, Mumbai (M.H.), Mumbai - 400 025 IFSC Code: UTIB0000060

¶51

6

¶52

(911) WP-937.26.DOCX

¶53

The Writ Petition No.937 of 2026 is disposed of.

¶54

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶55

7

Hetal Dhansukhlal Gohil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hetal Dhansukhlal Gohil v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Popatrao Ramchandra Bhoi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dibyendu Amal Manna and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Uma Subbaraman vs State of Maharashtra

Atish Sonu Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Dr Anirudh Chandrashekhar Rao vs State of Maharashtra

Rohit Ramlubaya Diwedi@ Rohit Diwedi and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra