Salil S/O. Madhukar Majgaonkar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12785 Bom

                                                                29judg WP 1054.2017.odt
                                           1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                    WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 1054/2017

1.       Salil S/o. Madhukar Majgoankar
         Aged about: 53 Years
         Occupation: Business
         Through Powa of Attorney of Petitioner No. 2

2.       Smt. Rashmi W/o. Salil Majgoankar
         Aged about: 48 Years
         Occupation: Business

         Both R/o. 81, Hill Road, Ramnagar
         Nagpur - 440033                                    ..... PETITIONER(S)

                                   // VERSUS //

1.       State of Maharashtra
         through Police Station Officer,
         Panchpaoli, Nagpur/
         Economic Offences Wing,
         Crime Branch, Nagpur.

2.       Smt. Meenakshi W/o Sudhir Gupta
         Aged about: 48 Years
         Resident of 401, Bhagyashree Apartments,
         Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.                      .... RESPONDENT(S)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Shyam Dewani, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. I.J. Damale, APP for respondent no. 1 Mr. D.J. Sindhu, Advocate for respondent no. 2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND M. W. CHANDWANI, J.J.

DATED : 08/12/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

SMGate 29judg WP 1054.2017.odt

Heard.

2 It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and

respondent no. 2 that Crime No. 0840/2017 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 467, 471 and 473 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the "IPC") r/w. Section 34 of the IPC

at Police Station Panchpavli, Nagpur was a result of mis-understanding

between the petitioners and respondent no. 2, which mis-understanding

arose out of their private dispute. This is also the submission of the

petitioners and respondent no. 2, who are personally present before this

Court and they are identified by their respective Counsel. The petitioners

point out that they have already filed Criminal Application No. 48/2022

alongwith Settlement Deed executed between the petitioners and

respondent no. 2 stating all these facts and they have no objection, if the

writ petition is allowed.

3. The learned APP for respondent no. 1 submits that an

appropriate order in the matter be passed.

4. We are satisfied that the dispute which lies at the core of the

crime registered against the petitioners in this case is of a private nature

and in view of the settlement between the parties, we are of the further

view that it is a fit case for making interference. Accordingly, the writ

petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (a-1), which read

as under:

SMGate 29judg WP 1054.2017.odt

"a) Quash and set aside the FIR registered by the Respondent no. 2 vide Crime No.0840/2017 at P.S. Panchpavli and presently investigated by the Crime Branch, for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 409, 467, 471, 473 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and all the consequential investigations/actions/proceedings thereto in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice;

(a-1) Quash and set aside the prosecution launched in the present matter vide Regular Criminal Case No. 4495/2018 pending before the Learned JMFC Court No.7, Nagpur, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;"

This is, however, subject to condition that the petitioners shall

deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and

respondent no. 2 shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand only) as a cost of the litigation, in the account of the Office of

the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur

within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, failing which,

these amounts shall be recovered by the Registry in accordance with law

by treating it as fine imposed by this Court.

5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

6. Criminal Application No. 48/2022 is also disposed of.

SANDIP (M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) MAHADEV GATE Personal Assistant to the Hon'ble Judge Digitally signed by SANDIP MAHADEV GATE SMGate Date: 2022.12.09 15:13:50 +0530