Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani And ANR. v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2118 of 2019 Mr. Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani and anr.

....Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and anr.

.....Respondents Mr. Manoj Mohite with Mr. Pranav Badhena, Mr.Amol Phoujdar and Mr.Amol Bavare i/b. Pragnya Legal, advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Thakare, PP along with Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the State.

Mr. Vikram Sutaria, advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

DATE : 16th APRIL, 2019.

P. C. :

Heard learned counsel and learned APP appearing for the respective parties.

2.

The petition is filed for quashing and setting aside FIR bearing C.R. No.469 of 2018 registered with Khar Police Station, at the instance of the respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

Pending investigation, the parties settled their dispute amicably and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, they have now approached this Court for quashing the subject FIR by consent. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 15 th April, Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

2019. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit, the respondent No.2 has given his consent for quashing the subject FIR. The respondent No.2 is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, he specifically stated that he has gone through the petition and the affidavit as well and has fully understood the contents thereof. He further confirmed that he has given no objection for quashing the subject FIR on his own free will and without there being any pressure or coercion. 4.

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. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the subject FIR pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes.

5.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of cost of Rs.25000/- by the petitioners to the "Anandwan" (payable in favour of "MAHAROGI SEWA SAMITI, WARORA") an institution which espouses the cause of socially Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

disadvantaged people by enhancing their livelihood capabilities through self discovery and empowering them to contribute to the Society. The petitioners shall pay the said cost and thereafter, produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.

6.

Subject to above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7.

All concerned to act upon a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry of this Court.

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