[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pramod Hastimal Mandot And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 5 December, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
NISHA
2025:BHC-AS:53736-DBDigitally signed by NISHA
SANDEEP CHITNIS
SANDEEP Date: 2025.12.09
CHITNIS 13:05:00 +0530
902-APL.1407.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1407 OF 2025
1. Pramod Hastimal Mandot
2. Kailash Pooranprasad Narayan
3. Prasad Mahadeo Satardekar
4. Pandurang Kisan Gopale
5. Asha Pramod Mandot ...Applicants
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Hastimal Jethmal Mandot @ Jain ...Respondents
Mr. Rajender Singh Saluja a/w Mr. Balraj Nishad for the Applicants.
Ms. P. P. Shinde, Addl.P.P for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Jeetendra Ranawat a/w Mr. Gaurav Gupta for the Respondent
No.2.
API - Bhatu Pawar and PSI - Suryakant Doke (Pairavi Officer) from
Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, is present.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 5th DECEMBER 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
902-APL.1407.2025.doc
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent
of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-
State. Mr. Ranawat waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.2.
3. By this application, the applicants seek quashing of the FIR
bearing C.R. No. 1144 of 2020 registered with the Borivali Police
Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Quashing is
sought on the premise, that the parties have amicably settled their
dispute.
4. Perused the application. At the outset, we may note that
the parties i.e. the applicant Nos.1 and 5 and respondent No.2 are
inter se related, inasmuch as, the respondent No.2 is the father of the
applicant No.1 and father-in-law of the applicant No.5. According to
the respondent No.2 (original complainant), his son (applicant No.1)
took a loan, mortgaging his shop premises to the bank. The said loan
902-APL.1407.2025.doc
was availed on the respondent No.2's shop by the applicant No.1 by
forging certain documents. In view of the same, respondent No.2
lodged an FIR as against the applicants alleging the aforesaid offences.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the said case and the case
is currently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai being Case No. 1926/PW/2022.
5. In the interregnum, during the pendency of the aforesaid
proceeding, the parties amicably settled their dispute. Respondent
No.2 has filed his consent affidavit dated 3 rd December 2025. In the
consent affidavit, the respondent No.2 has stated that he had rented
the shop premises to the applicant No.1 (his son) and that the
applicant No.1 was paying him compensation for the same. It is
further stated by the respondent No.2, that he learnt from the bank
that the applicant No.1 had taken loan from the Bank, by forging his
signature. The respondent No.2 in his consent affidavit has stated that
the applicant No.1 had taken a loan for further development of the
business, however, due to Covid 19 the business activities came to a
902-APL.1407.2025.doc
standstill, as a result of which, the applicant No.1 was unable to pay
the loan installment. In the said consent affidavit, the respondent
No.2 has stated that the applicants have paid the loan and have
cleared the loan amount. The respondent No.2 has further stated in
the consent affidavit that the matter has been amicably settled
between him and the applicants and that he has no objection to the
quashing of the FIR/charge-sheet and proceeding initiated at his behest
qua the applicants. Respondent No.2 is present in Court. On
questioning, he re-iterates what is stated by him in his consent
affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has tendered a self
attested photocopy of the driving licence of the respondent No. 2.
The same is taken on record. Learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2 has identified the respondent No.2 and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor has also verified the original driving licence of the
respondent No.2.
6. It appears that apart from the four accused, there is one
more accused shown in the charge-sheet by the name Sachin Pawar.
902-APL.1407.2025.doc
When confronted, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on
instructions, states that although Sachin Pawar is shown as absconding,
there is no material qua him.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on instructions
of the respondent No.2 states that the respondent No.2 has no
objection to the quashing of the proceeding even qua him, considering
that the said Sachin Pawar has no role to play.
8. Considering the nature of dispute, the relations between
the parties, the consent affidavit of the respondent No.2 and having
regard to the judicial pronouncements in this regard, there is no
impediment in allowing the application.
9. The Application is accordingly allowed and the FIR
bearing C.R. No. 1144 of 2020 registered with the Borivali Police
Station, Mumbai, charge-sheet and consequently, the proceeding
902-APL.1407.2025.doc
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 26 th Court,
Borivali, Mumbai being Case No. 1926/PW/2022, are quashed and
set-aside.
10. Consequently, if any Look Out Notice/Circular is pending
against the applicants, the same is also quashed and set-aside.
11. Needless to state, that the property documents vis-a-vis
the respondent No.2's shop, be handed over to the respondent No.2
by the respondent No.1 i.e. Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, or the
Court, wherever, the said document is, forthwith.
12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Application
is disposed of accordingly.
13. Each of the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/-,
with the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund bearing Account No.
902-APL.1407.2025.doc
465010100008693, IFSC No. UTIB0000465, as costs. The said costs
to be deposited within two weeks from today.
14. Stand over to 9th January 2026, for recording compliance
of the said deposit of costs.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
judgment.
SANDESH D. PATIL, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
