Vishal Vijay Vishwasrao @ Vishal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 9254 Bom

             Digitally signed by
LAXMIKANT    LAXMIKANT
GOPAL        GOPAL CHANDAN
             Date: 2021.07.17
CHANDAN      18:11:20 +0530                                   (9) cri.wp-159.19-jt..odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.159 OF 2019

            1]    Mr. Vishal Vijay Vishwasrao @ Vishal Rao     ]
                  Age : 29 years, occ : Politician             ]
                  R/at : B/304, Thakur Apartment,              ]
                  Lokmanya Nagar, Thane (West)                 ]
                  Thane - 400 606                              ]
                                                               ]
            2]    Mr. Vikrant Prakash Shinde                   ]
                  Age : 30 years, occ : Business               ]
                  R/at : 1/23, Shraddha Rahivashi Sangh,       ]
                  G D Ambedkar Marg, Near Abhyudaya Bank,      ]
                  Parel Village, Parel, Mumbai                 ]
                                                               ]
            3]    Mr. Vishwanath Rama Godse                    ]
                  Age : 26 years, occ : Worker                 ]
                  R/at : Room No.59, Ahemdabad Street          ]
                  P D'mello road, Behind Vyapar Bhavan         ]
                  Zopadpatti Masjid Bunder, Mumbai - 09        ]
                                                               ]
            4]    Mr. Virendra Jagmohan Nishad                 ]
                  Age : 38 years, Occ : Worker                 ]
                  R/at : Gala No.25, R one A,                  ]
                  Subhash Nagar, MHADA Colony,                 ]
                  Subhash Nagar, Nahur-(West)                  ]
                  Mumbai - 400 078                             ]
                                                               ]
            5]    Mr. Pratik Sharad Mhetre                     ]
                  Age : 23 years, Occ : Student                ]
                  R/at Sakhar Galli Zhopadpatti,               ]
                  Karnak Siding Road, Near Lokhand Jettha      ]
                  Masjid Bunder, Mumbai - 400 009              ]..... Petitioners.

                          Versus

            1]    The State of Maharashtra                     ]
                  (At the instance of MRA Marg P.S)            ]
                                                               ]
            2]    Mr. Pradyumna Dhananjay Kulkarni             ]

            lgc                                                                    1 of 8
                                                            (9) cri.wp-159.19-jt..odt

      Age : 41 years, Occ : Service                        ]
      R/at : C-402, Bhagirathi Pride C.H.S.,               ]
      Near Nisarg Udyaan No.2,                             ]
      Behind Govind Dham Complex,                          ]..... Respondents/

Badlapur, Dist. Thane ] First Informant.

Mr. B R Samel i/by Rajeev Sawant & Associates for the Petitioners. Mrs. M H Mhatre, APP for Respondent/State.

Mr. Pranav Badheka a/w Mr. Ryan S, and Mr. Niaranjan Pachupate i/by Mr. Prashant Pawar for Respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 present through video conferencing.

                          CORAM :         S. S. SHINDE,
                                          N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

                          DATE     :      15th JULY 2021

JUDGMENT : (PER S. S. SHINDE, J)

1            At the outset the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners

seeks leave to amend so as to take exception to the charge-sheet filed against

the Petitioners before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16 th Court, Ballard

Pier, Mumbai. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

Amended copy of the Petition be placed on record after serving the copy of the

same on the other side.

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent

of the learned counsel for the parties.

3 By this Writ Petition the Petitioners seek relief of quashing and

setting aside the charge-sheet being CC No.44/PW/2019 pending before the

lgc 2 of 8 (9) cri.wp-159.19-jt..odt

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16 th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbia arising out

of FIR No.264 of 2018 registered with MRA Marg Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 336, 504 and

506(2) of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners registered at the

instance of Respondent No.2 herein.

4 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned

counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent jointly submit that the parties have

amicably settled the dispute and to that effect Respondent No.2 has filed his

affidavit as also the consent terms dated 25 th March 2019 duly signed by the

parties and their respective advocates have been placed on record before this

Court.

5 It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent No.2 that Respondent No.2 is the authorized representative of GAC

Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. and he has authorized to represent the said

company for withdrawing the impugned FIR. It is further submitted that in

view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the Respondent

No.2 has given his No Objection for quashing the impugned FIR. The relevant

extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the board of directions of GAC (India)

Pvt. Ltd. held on 25th October 2018 are placed on record at Exhibit-A.

lgc                                                                        3 of 8
                                                          (9) cri.wp-159.19-jt..odt

6            The Respondent No.2 is present before this Court through video

conferencing. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2

identified the Respondent No.2. When we interacted with him, he stated that

he has been authorized by GAC Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vide its board

resolution dated 25.10.2018 to represent and withdraw the impugned FIR. He

further stated that it is their voluntary act to enter into the settlement. He

further stated that they have no objection for quashing the proceedings arising

out of the impugned FIR.

7 In support of his aforesaid statements, the Respondent No.2 has

filed his affidavit. The Respondent No.2 in paragraphs 1 to 3 of his affidavit has

stated thus :-

"1 I say that, I am the authorise representative of GAC Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. am authorized by GAC Shipping India Pvt. Ltd, vide its board resolution dated 25.102018 to represent and withdraw the FIR No.264 of 2018. A copy of the board resolution dated 25.10.2018 is annexed hereto and marked as "Exhibit-A". I say that I being the authorized representative of GAC Shipping India Pvt. Ltd, am executing the present affidavit for quashing of the FIR No.264 of 2018 registered registered with M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai for committing offences under section 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 336, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code is lodged at my instance.

2 Isay that as the dispute between the parties have been settled amicably, hence I have NO OBJECTION to quash the FIR No.264 of 2018 registered under section 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 336, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal

lgc 4 of 8 (9) cri.wp-159.19-jt..odt

Code at my instance by the M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai on 11.10.2018.

3 I say that I am executing the present Affidavit without any duress, coercion to the limite4d extent of quashing of the FIR No.264 of 2018."

8 The learned counsel appearing for the parties have also placed on

record the consent terms arrived at between the parties. Paragraphs 1 to 5 of

the said consent terms are relevant and they are re-produced herein under for

ready reference :-

"1 The Petitioner No.1 to 5 are arraigned as Accused in FIR No.264 of 2018 registered by the M.R. Marg Police Station, Mumbai under Section 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 336, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code at the instance of the Respondent No.2.

2 That, during the pendency of the above said FIR the Petitioner No.1 to 5 approached the Respondent No.2 and made a representation for amicable settlement of the above saie matter as the said incident occurred at the instance because of their misunderstanding and assured and confirmed that they will not repeat the same. In view of this assurance and confirmation requested to consider their proposal for amicable settlement.

3 The Respondent No.2 in view of the said confirmation and assurance that they will not commit such offence considered the proposal for amicable settlement given by the Petitioner No.1 to 5 and decided to consent for amicable settlement and give NO OBJECTION for quashing of the FIR No.264 of 2018 registered by the M.R. Marg Police Station, Mumbai under Section 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 336, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code at the instance of the Respondent No.2.

       4    The Respondent N.2 has executed the affidavit giving NO

lgc                                                                      5 of 8
                                                         (9) cri.wp-159.19-jt..odt

OBJECTION for quashing of the FIR No.264 of 2018 registered by the M.R. Marg Police Station, Mumbai under Section 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 336, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code at the instance of the Respondent No.2.

OBJECTION for quashing of the FIR No.264 of 2018 registered by the M.R. Marg Police Station, Mumbai under Section 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 336, 504, 506(2) of IPC unconditionally with mutual consent."

9 The learned APP appearing for the Respondent/State, on

instructions, submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the present

Petitioners.

10 We have perused the material on record. In view of the settlement

arrived at between the parties, no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing

the further proceedings i.e. C.C. No.44/PW/2019 pending on the file of

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16 th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai arising out

of FIR No.264 of 2018 registered by the M.R. A Marg Police Station, Mumbai

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 336, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal

Code at the instance of the Respondent No.2.

11 The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab

and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and

predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

lgc 6 of 8 (9) cri.wp-159.19-jt..odt

quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,

mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence arising out

of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is

basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their

entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal

proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and

the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and

extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case

despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. It is

further held that, as inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory

limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in

such power viz.: (I) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the

process of any court.

12 In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly

clear that the 2nd Respondent is not going to support the allegations made in

the impugned FIR and further continuation of proceedings i.e. C.C. No.44/PW/

2019 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16 th Court,

Ballard Pier, Mumbai arising out of FIR No.264 of 2018 registered by the

M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427,

336, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code at the instance of the Respondent No.2

lgc 7 of 8 (9) cri.wp-159.19-jt..odt

would tantamount to the abuse of the process of Court. Since the Respondent

No.2 is not going to support the allegations in the FIR the chances of

conviction of the Petitioners would be remote and bleak. In order to prevent

the abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, it would be

appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and the Charge-sheet. In

that view of the matter, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and, the same

is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :-

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside C.C. No.44/PW/2019 pending before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, (16th Court), Ballard Pier, arising out of the FIR No.264 of 2018 registered with the M.R.A Marg Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable u/sec.143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 336, 504, 506(2) of IPC against the Petitioner registered at the instance of Respondent No.2/First Informant on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

Rule made absolute to the above extent. The Writ Petition stands disposed of

accordingly.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J]                                       [S. S. SHINDE , J]






lgc                                                                           8 of 8