Mohan Nandlal Maurya v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1860 OF 2018 Mohan Nandlal Maurya.

..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Another.

..Respondents.

Mr. Anand Pande I/b K. M. Mhatre for the Petitioner. Ms. S. S. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Arun Rajput for Respondent No. 2.

Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

Date : October 19, 2018.

P. C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and learned APP for the RespondentState. 2.

The petition is filed seeking quashment of FIR bearing CR. No.595 of 2016 registered with Malad Police Station at the instance of Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465 and 467 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation into above FIR, with the help and intervention of friends and wellwishers, the parties have amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement and pursuant to the understanding arrived at between them, present petition is filed for quashing the above FIR by consent of Respondent No.2.

1 / 3

4.

Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit dated 19th October 2018. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, she has given no objection to quash the subject FIR. Respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavit on her own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the subject FIR initiated by her against the Petitioner.

5.

.

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the subject FIR alive pending except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened.

6.

In the light of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the subject FIR. Accordingly, petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it would be appropriate to 2 / 3

saddle the Petitioner with the cost of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be paid to "Tata Memorial Hospital" an institution that takes care of the advanced and terminally ill cancer patients. For the quashment to take effect, the Petitioner shall pay the said cost and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est.

[SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] 3 / 3