Bombay High Court

Mohini Pandharipande vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 July, 2021

Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar

13-CRIWP1102-2021.DOC

Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1102 OF 2021

Mohini Parag Pandharipande
Indian Inhabitant, Aged 72 years,
Residing at A-503, 24K Gliterrati,
Vishal Nagar, Pimple Nilakh,
Pune - 411 027. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Senior Inspector, Andheri
Police Station)
2. Varsha Chandrashekhar Sankholker
Indian Inhabitant, Adult,
Residing at 1806, Oberoi Splendor,
JVLR, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai - 400 060. ...Respondents

Smt. Lakshmi Raman, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Pawaskar, a/w Smt. Varsha, for Respondent no.2.
Smt. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent no.1.

CORAM: S. S. SHINDE &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATED: 16th JULY, 2021
(Through V.C.)

JUDGMENT : PER : N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the

consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard fnally.

2. This petition is preferred to quash and set aside the frst

information report bearing CR No.86/2021, registered with

Andheri Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable

1/5

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2021 00:26:37 :::
13-CRIWP1102-2021.DOC

under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860, ("the Penal Code"), on the basis of the

settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent

no.2 - frst informant, qua the petitioner.

3. Smt. Raman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Pawaskar, the learned Counsel for respondent no.2 made a

joint statement that the petitioner and respondent no.2 have

amicably resolved the dispute and respondent no.2 does not

desire to prosecute the petitioner.

4. Respondent no.2 appeared before the Court through Video

Conferencing. We have interacted with the respondent no.2.

She submits that she has voluntarily arrived at amicable

settlement of the dispute between the petitioner. There is no

coercion or duress. A sum of Rs.90,00,000/- has already been

paid to her. Balance amount is also agreed to be paid.

5. Respondent no.2 sworn an affdavit. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of

the affdavit read as under:

"2. I say that a consent a consent term for settlement of
the dispute was fled in Bail Application No.560 of 2021 on
24th May, 2021. the said Bail Application was fled by Mr.
Mohit Parag Pandharipande before the Hon'ble Sessions
Court at Dindoshi. As part of the settlement Mrs. Mohinit
Parag Pandharipande & Mr. Parag Pandharipande are to pay
a total amount of Rs.2.48 Crore for settlement of all dispute
between the parties. It is further agreed between me and Mrs.
Mohini Parag Pandharipande that upon receipt of
Rs.90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs only), I will consent for
2/5

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2021 00:26:37 :::
13-CRIWP1102-2021.DOC

quashing of C.R. No.86 of 2021, dated 8th February, 2021,
registered with Andheri Police Station, Mumbai only against
Mrs. Mohini Parag Pandharipande.
3. I say that out of the aforesaid amount of
Rs.90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs only) an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) has been paid by
Mrs. Mohini Parag Pandharipande by bank transfer on 24 th
May, 2021, itself.
4. I say that I have been informed that as per the Consent
Terms dated 24th May, 2021 the petitioner has got issued a
Bankers Cheque/Demand Draft dated 28th June, 2021 for an
amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) drawn
on Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing no.571071 in favour of
Chandrashekhar Sankholkar, who is my husband.
5. I further say that as per the Consent Terms the above
mentioned Demand Draft will be handed over to me at the
time of hearing of the petition. I say that as per the settlement
arrived at between the petitioner, myself and my husband, I
am accepting the aforesaid total amount of Rs.90,00,000/-
(Rupees Ninety Lakhs only) towards the full and fnal
settlement of the abovementioned complaint against the
petitioner i.e. Mrs. Mohini Parag Pandharipande and have no
objection to quashing of the CR No.86 of 2021 dated 8 th
February, 2021, registered with Andheri Police Station,
Mumbai only against Mrs. Mohini Parag Pandharipande upon
receipt of the Demand Draft/Bankers cheque as mentioned
above."

6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and the

averments, we have perused the material on record including

the frst information report. It seems that the genesis of the

occurrence is in a commercial transaction between respondent

no.2 and her husband Mr. Chandrashekhar, on the one side,

and Mr. Mohit Pandharipande, the son of the petitioner, on the

other side. The dispute seems to be essentially private one. It

has predominantly a civil favour. In view of the settlement

arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2, the

3/5

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2021 00:26:37 :::
13-CRIWP1102-2021.DOC

possibility of the prosecution ending in a conviction qua the

petitioner appears to be bleak.

7. A useful reference in this context can be made to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab and another1, wherein the Supreme Court has

observed as under;

"61......... the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil favour stand on a different footing
for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, fnancial, 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."

8. The aforesaid pronouncement is on all four with the facts

of the case, qua the petitioner. No fruitful purpose will be

served by continuing the prosecution qua the petitioner. On the

12012 (10) SCC 303
4/5

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2021 00:26:37 :::
13-CRIWP1102-2021.DOC

contrary, having regard to the age of the petitioner, the

continuation of the prosecution would cause serious prejudice.

9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, to secure the ends of

justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, we are

persuaded to allow the petition.

10. Hence, the following order:

: ORDER :