Bombay High Court
Jaswinder Singh Sohal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 July, 2016
Bench: Naresh H. Patil
rpa 1/6 wp-3574-15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3574 OF 2015
Jaswinder Singh Sohal .. Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
......
Mr. K. B. Rajput, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent - State.
Mr. S.S. Raut, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Salik Khan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.
......
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND
ig PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
DATED : JULY 12, 2016.
JUDGMENT (Per PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2 Learned APP waives service for Respondent - State.
3 The petitioner have invoked the writ jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as
the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and sought to challenge the criminal proceedings
pending before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
rpa 2/6 wp-3574-15.doc
4 The petitioner is impleaded as accused in C.R.No.179
of 2012, registered with Bandra Kurla Complex (for short "BKC")
Police Station on 22nd December, 2012, for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 511 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (For short "IPC"). The
said FIR was registered at the instance of the second respondent.
On completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed
before the competent Court and the proceedings are presently
pending before the aforesaid Court vide C.C.No.4005/PW/2015.
5 It is the case of the complainant that he is the real
brother of the petitioner - accused. In the year 1966, the mother
of the petitioner and second respondent purchased the property
bearing Plot No.4611-A of T.P.S. - VII at Khar bearing C.T.S.No.
E/157. It is further alleged that the agreement was executed in
the year 1979 and since their mother had friendly relationship
with the co-accused, a power of attorney was executed by her in
their favour. The mother passed away on 18th April, 2007 and it
was further found that the power of attorney was allegedly
fabricated by the petitioner in connivance with the other accused.
6 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
rpa 3/6 wp-3574-15.doc
second respondent submitted that the parties have arrived at
peaceful settlement. It is decided by both the parties to
compromise the dispute on certain terms and, therefore, had
approached this Court for quashing the proceedings by consent.
It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent no.2 are real
brothers and the dispute is essentially related to property
transaction which was originally entertained by their mother. It is
also stated that the transaction was duly completed by execution
of proper documents.ig
7 Second respondent has tendered an affidavit before
the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9 th Court,
Bandra, Mumbai on 29th August, 2015, stating that the matter is
settled between both the parties. The said fact was recorded by
the Court in its order dated 29th August, 2015, and the
accused/petitioner was directed to be released on bail. The said
affidavit as well as the order passed by the Court are annexed to
this petition. Second respondent has also submitted an affidavit
before this Court wherein it is stated that the dispute has been
settled and he does not wish to proceed with the FIR against the
accused. It is further mentioned that the dispute pertains
particularly to family assets and related transactions between the
rpa 4/6 wp-3574-15.doc
family members and, therefore, it was their intra-individual
understanding to resolve their dispute amicably. It is also
mentioned that the complainant has intimated the investigating
agency not to proceed with the FIR which is also reflected in the
affidavit filed by him before the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 29 th August, 2015. It
further averred that the first informant is not interested in
pursuing the prosecution and unconditionally withdrawing the
complaint. It is further mentioned that the transaction of sale has
been completed in relation to the subject property and that he do
not have any objection for quashing the criminal proceedings
arising out of C.R.No.179 of 2012.
8 We have perused the contents of the petition, the
documents annexed therein as well as the affidavit tendered by
the complainant. It is noticed that the dispute had arisen out of
the property transaction. The petitioner and the second
respondent are real brothers. The dispute was related to the
transaction executed by their mother. The dispute is being
resolved and the parties have completed the transaction and in
view of that the complainant do not want to pursue the criminal
prosecution. The dispute is essentially of private nature and
rpa 5/6 wp-3574-15.doc
public at large has no nexus with the same. The Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. 1, has observed
that the High Court may exercise the powers of quashing in
respect of the dispute which are private in nature in the event of
amicable settlement arrived at between the respective parties. In
view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to allow this
petition and quash the criminal proceedings which are under
challenge.
Hence, We pass the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Rule is made absolute.
(ii) Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.4005/PW/ 2015
arisen out of C.R. No.179 of 2012 registered
with B.K.C. Police Station for the offences
punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 468.
471 and 511 read with Section 24 of the Indian
Penal Code are hereby quashed and set aside,
subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/-
1(2012) 10 - SCC 303
rpa 6/6 wp-3574-15.doc
(Rupees Twenty Thousand) to be paid by the
Petitioner to the Police Welfare Fund by 5th
August, 2016;
(iii) Payment of costs is a condition precedent for
quashing the FIR. The order of quashing the
FIR would be operative after the Petitioner
deposits the amount of costs and submits
receipt of the same to the registry of this Court;
(iv) The In-charge Police Officer of Bandra Kurla
Police Station, Mumbai shall take cognizance of
this order only if Petitioner produces an
authenticated copy of this order along with a
photostat copy of receipt of payment of costs;
(v) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of
this order.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
