Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mandar Babu Shetty vs State Of Maharahtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5971 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 5971 Bom
Judgement Date : 16 August, 2017

Bombay High Court
Mandar Babu Shetty vs State Of Maharahtra And Ors on 16 August, 2017
Bench: R.M. Savant
                                    * 1/6 *       24-APL-819-2017.doc

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL   APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

                      WRIT PETITION NO.3383 OF 2016

Mandar Babu Shetty                                   ...Petitioner.
          V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.                          ...Respondents. 

Mr. M.S.Singh, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State.

                                    WITH
                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.819 OF 2017 


Rakesh Shiva Shetty & Ors.                           ....Applicants
     V/s.
Mandar Shetty & Anr.                                 ....Respondents 


Mr. S.V.Marwadi with Ms. Saroj N. Jadhav, Advocates for Applicants.
Mr. K.V.Saste,APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. M.S.Singh,Advocate for Respondent No.1.


                                       ******

                            CORAM :-   R.M. SAVANT & 
                                                SANDEEP K.  SHINDE, JJ.
                            DATE     :- 16TH AUGUST,   2017.


P.C. :-


The above petition has been filed by the complainant

against the original accused nos.1 to 3. The above criminal

application has been filed by the original accused nos. 1 to 3 Shivgan

* 2/6 * 24-APL-819-2017.doc

wherein the complainant is the respondent no.1. The FIR is arising

out of a commercial dispute between the first informant and the

accused. The parties have arrived at settlement which they have

reduced into writing by way of 'Consent Terms' bearing today's date

i.e, 16.8.2017. The 'Consent Terms' have been executed before the

Notary Public Mrs. Aliya N. Pathan, Notary, Greater Mumbai,

Government of India bearing Notarial Register No.26187 dated

16.8.2017. In the context of the reliefs sought in the above petition,

i.e., in respect of quashing of the proceedings in the Sessions Case

bearing No.958 of 2015, clauses 1 and 5 are material which are re-

produced hereunder:

"1 The PARTY OF THE SECOND PART has no objection for quashing of the proceedings viz Sessions Case No.958 of 2015 pending before the Hon'ble Sessions Court at Bombay arising out of FIR No.401 of 2014 registered with Nagpada Police Station.

5 The PARTY OF THE SECOND PART has no grievance against the PARTIES OF FIRST PART and hence does not wish to proceed against the PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART."

The said 'Consent Terms' also contain arrangements in respect of

muddemal properties which are not necessary to be adverted to in

the instant order.


                                                                                   Shivgan



                                   * 3/6 *         24-APL-819-2017.doc




2                The   respondent   no.1,   i.e.,   the   complainant   Mandar 

Babu Shetty has filed affidavit-in-reply in the above Criminal

Application No.819 of 2017. The said affidavit-in-reply bears today's

date i.e., 16.8.2017 and is also affirmed before the same Notary

Public, i.e, Mrs. Aliya N. Pathan. It bears Notarial Register No.26186

dated 16.8.2017. The factum of the applicant no.1 Rakesh Shiva

Shetty having paid a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs to the complainant is

accepted vide clause (2). Vide clause (3), return of Skoda Laura

automatic car bearing No.MH-04-EQ-6789 is mentioned. In

paragraph 7, it has been mentioned that the factum of filing of the

above Writ Petition by the complainant for quashing of the

proceedings is evidence of the amicable settlement arrived at

between the parties and on the said basis, quashing of the

proceedings pending before the Sessions Court at Bombay bearing

Sessions Case No.958 of 2015 is sought. Hence, the 'Consent Terms'

and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.1 ex-facie

discloses the settlement arrived at between the parties, i.e., the

complainant and the accused who are the applicants in the above

criminal application.



                                                                              Shivgan



                                   * 4/6 *       24-APL-819-2017.doc




3                The   complainant   Mandar   Babu   Shetty   is   personally 

present in the Court. He has been identified by the learned counsel

Mr. Mithilesh S. Singh. He has also been identified by his PAN Card

No.BIVPS4585A. When put in the box and querried, he states that

'Consent Terms' are acceptable to him and he has signed them of his

own free will and volition. He also reiterates the same in respect of

the affidavit-in-reply which he has filed in the above Criminal

Application.

4 Applicant No.2-Sunil Bhanushali is personally present in

the Court. He has been identified by the learned counsel, Ms. Saroj

Jadhav. He has also been identified by his PAN Card bearing

no.AUAPB34690. When put in the box and querried, he states that

he has been explained the 'Consent Terms' by the advocate on record

and he has understood the same. He also accepts the fact that an

amount of Rs.50 Lakhs is paid to the first informant as and by way

of full and final settlement. He further states that he and the other

applicants have signed the 'Consent Terms' of their own free will and

volition, as an outcome of the settlement between the parties. The

Shivgan

* 5/6 * 24-APL-819-2017.doc

'Consent Terms' are taken on record and marked as X for

Identification. In respect of clause (4) of the 'Consent Terms', the

parties may make an appropriate application before the concerned

Court. The concerned Court would pass an appropriate order having

regard to the 'Consent Terms' arrived at between the parties.

5 In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the

case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC

466, there is no impediment in quashing the proceedings though the

offences alleged are non-compoundable. Dictum of the Supreme

Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC

303 would also lead to the same conclusion. No useful purpose

would therefore be served in keeping the proceedings pending.

Hence, the above criminal writ petition is allowed and made

absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In view of the fact that by the

relief granted in the above writ petition, the proceeding in question

has been quashed, there is no warrant to pass a separate order in

the above Criminal Application for quashing the same proceeding

i.e. Sessions Case No.958 of 2015.



6                In   view   of   the   fact   that   machinery   of   this   Court   has 

                                                                                  Shivgan



                                 * 6/6 *        24-APL-819-2017.doc

been used for settlement of private disputes between the parties, it

would be just and proper to direct the applicants in the criminal

application no.819 of 2017 to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Kirtikar

Law Librarary, High Court, Bombay. Same to be done within a

period of four weeks from the date.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)                                      (R.M. SAVANT, J)




                                                                           Shivgan



 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter