Jayant Balubhai Patel v. Approva Kirit Tolat And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2016 OF 2014 Jayant Balubhai Patel .. Petitioner v/s.

Approva Kirit Tolat & Anr.

..Respondents Ms. Monika Gomes i/b Birendra Kumar for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Shinde, PP a/w K.V. Saste, APP for the respondent State Ms. Priya Ambre i/b L.C. Tolat & Co. for the respondent no.1. CORAM: RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATED: 21st APRIL, 2015.

P.C.

1.

Heard. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings of C.C. No.1440/SS/2010, pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The said case arises out of C.R. No.99 of 2010 registered with Juhu Police Station, Mumbai against the petitioner at the instance of respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 325,

323, 504, 506 and 427 of the IPC.

2.

After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Agency before the concerned Magistrate, which is numbered as C.C. No.1440/SS/2010. During the pendency of the trial, parties have settled their dispute amicably and in pursuance of the said understanding, they have filed the present petition for quashing the said C.R., by consent. The joint consent terms, dated 17th April, 2015 are filed by the petitioner and respondent no.1. The affidavit in support of the said consent terms, dated 13th April, 2015 are filed by the petitioner and respondent no.1 separately. Perusal of the said consent terms and affidavit in support thereto, show that the parties have settled their dispute and they do not want to proceed further in the said criminal case. Respondent no.1 is personally present in the Court. On specific query made by us, he submitted that he has no objection for quashing the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings.

2.

We are of the view that the dispute is of personal nature and the ratio in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) AIR SCW 2065 would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and as such there is no impediment in quashing the criminal complaint.

3.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C), subject to petitioner to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to Shanti Avedna Sadan, Mount Mary Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Cost is condition precedence. If the cost is not paid within stipulated period, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)