Bombay High Court
Santosh Sambhaji More vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 7 June, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2023:BHC-AS:15254-DB
sg 1 6.wp1059-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1059 OF 2021
Mr. Santosh Sambhaji More ..... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... Respondents
.....
Mr. Kuldeep Patil, for the Petitioner.
Smt. A.S. Pai, GP, a/w. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP, for Respondent
State.
Mr. Nikhil Hire, for Respondent No.2.
.....
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 7 JUNE 2023.
Oral Judgment (Per Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of
parties. Learned APP waives for the Respondent State. Learned
Counsel for Respondent No.2 waives for the Respondent No.2.
2. The Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in FIR
bearing C.R. No.457 of 2018, registered with the Akluj Police
Station, District Solapur, for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 384, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 33
and 34 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Registration) Act,
2014, lodged at the instance of the Respondent No.2. The
Petitioner seeks quashing of the said FIR.
sg 2 6.wp1059-21.doc
3. Heard Mr. Kuldeep Patil, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, Smt. A.S. Pai, learned GP, for the Respondent State and
Mr. Nikhil Hire, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits
that, during pendency of the proceedings, the parties have amicably
settled the matter. He would further submit that even on merits
the FIR deserves to be quashed, as even if the FIR is taken at its
face value, no offence as alleged is made out. Learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.2 does not dispute the position
that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. He
has invited attention of this Court to the consent affidavit dated
10th January 2023, which has been filed on behalf of the
Respondent No.2 extending his consent for quashing.
5. We have perused the proceedings. Although it is the
contention of the Petitioner that the FIR, even if taken at its face
value, does not make out the alleged offence in view of the
admitted position that the parties have amicably settled the dispute,
we refrain from going into the merits of the matter. The
Respondent No.2 is present in person and has been identified by
his Counsel and through his Aadhar Card, a copy whereof has been
taken on record. The Respondent No.2 has reiterated his consent
for quashing of the FIR.
6. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties
sg 3 6.wp1059-21.doc
and the compromise, which has been entered into between the
parties, we do not find any purpose in continuing the criminal
proceedings. As the Respondent No.2 does not appear to have any
claim as against the Petitioner, there is no impediment in quashing
the FIR, bearing C.R. No.457 of 2018, and the charge-sheet arising
out of the said FIR, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-
each, to be paid by the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 within
a period of four weeks from today. The costs to be paid to the
Central Police Welfare Fund, Director General, M.S., Mumbai
(Account No.914010029005759, IFSC Code-UTIB0000060,
Axis Bank, Worli, Mumbai (MH), within a period of three weeks
from today and the receipt evidencing the payment of costs to be
filed with the Registry in the present petition.
7. Needless to state that in event, the costs as directed
above are not deposited within specified period, the above order
and the FIR and the charge-sheet shall stand automatically recalled
and the petition to be listed for direction within a period of one
week thereafter.
8. Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
