Bombay High Court
Virendra S/O Late Iswariprasad ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Lakadganj ... on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale, G. A. Sanap
1 13-WP-496-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 2020
VIRENDRA S/O LATE ISHWARIPRASAD KHARE
Vrs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 489 OF 2018
SAKET S/O LALITKUMAR LOHIA AND ANOTHER
Vrs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1106 OF 2021
SUHASINI W/O LALITKUMAR LOHIA
Vrs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1091 OF 2018
LALITKUMAR S/O LATE NANDKISHORE LOHIA
Vrs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sahil Dewani, Advocate for petitioners/applicants.
Shri I. J. Damle, A.P. P. for Respondent-State.
Shri R. S. Akbani, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:- MANISH PITALE AND
G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED :- 03/08/2022.
1. This writ petition and applications pertain to
FIR No.131/2017 dated 12/06/2017 registered with
Police Station Lakadganj.
2. The petitioner/applicants are seeking
quashing of the FIR. In these matters, this Court had
passed interim order and charge sheet was not filed.
2 13-WP-496-20.odt
3. The offences were registered under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) at the behest of respondent No.2, who was the
President of the Flat Owners Association for sometime and
he is a Flat Owner in the complex of Flats. The petitioner/
applicants before this Court are the land-owners,
Developer and the Architect, who were concerned with
the project of development of the aforesaid flats. It
appears that there were certain grievances of the flat
owners of the said complex, which were allegedly not
attended to by the petitioner/applicants leading to the
respondent No.2 approaching the police with grievance
which led to the aforesaid FIR being registered.
4. With passage of time, the Flat Owners
Association on the one hand and the petitioner/applicants,
on the other appear to have settled their disputes and
Memorandum of Understanding dated 16/12/2021 was
executed. An affidavit of respondent No.2 / original
complainant is placed on record in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 496/2020, stating that the grievances were indeed
satisfied and therefore, the parties had settled the said
disputes and the respondent No.2 was agreeable to the
quashing of the FIR.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties
invited attention of this Court to the Memorandum of
Understand, as also the affidavit and by relying upon the
Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
3 13-WP-496-20.odt
Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab and another, reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and others Vrs.
State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC
466, submitted that this Court may exercise power,
thereby allowing the writ petition and the applications to
quash the aforesaid FIR.
6. In the case of Gian Singh Vrs. State of Punjab
and another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court took into
consideration situations where the parties had entered
into the settlements. It was laid down that the certain
categories of offences, particularly those arising purely out
of commercial transactions or matrimonial disputes could
be settled and High Court could exercise power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and charge
sheet, when it was found that no purpose would be served
by allowing the matters to go to trial. The said position
was reiterated in the subsequent Judgment of Narinder
Singh and others Vrs. State of Punjab and another (supra).
As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid Judgments, this Court is of the
opinion that, in view of settlement of the disputes
between the parties, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be a futile exercise. This case also demands that the
disputes having been put to an end there should be no
impediment in exercising power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR in question.
4 13-WP-496-20.odt
7. Respondent No.2 i.e. original complainant is
present in Court and he has instructed his counsel in
terms of the affidavit placed on record and the
Memorandum of Understanding, that he has no objection
for quashing of the said FIR.
8. In view of the above, writ petition and
applications are allowed. The FIR bearing No.131/2017
dated 12/06/2017 is quashed.
[G. A. SANAP, J.] [MANISH PITALE, J.]
Choulwar
VITHAL Digitally signed by VITHAL
MAROTRAO CHOULWAR
MAROTRAO Date: 2022.08.05 10:49:43
CHOULWAR +0530
