Rajiv Vedkumar Roy And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 876 OF 2022

1. Rajiv Vedkumar Roy

2. Vijay Vedkumar Roy ...Applicants vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. Smt. Poonam Keshav Roy

...Respondents

***** Mr. Shashank Borade - Advocate for the Applicants Mr. Yash Jain i/by Mr. J. P. Yagnik - APP for the RespondentState Mr. Santosh Salekar - Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ***** CORAM :

REVATI MOHITE DERE & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE :

29th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P. C. :- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and the application is taken up for final disposal. Leearned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Santosh Salekar waives notice SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date: 2022.10.06 17:15:08 +0530 1/6

on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

By this application, the Applicants seek quashing of the FIR bearing M.E.C.R. No. 11 of 2003 registered with the Colaba Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged ofences punishable under Sections 451, 454, 380 r/w 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Quashing is sought on the premise, that the Applicants and Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled their dispute.

Perused the papers. The Respondent No. 2 is the aunt of the Applicants. It appears that pursuant to the private complaint lodged by the Respondent No. 2, the learned J.M.F.C. passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Colaba police registered M.E.C.R. No. 11 of 2003, alleging ofences punishable under Sections 451, 454, 380 r/w 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as against the Applicants. It appears that there was some dispute with respect to a fat, at Sagar Sangeet building, between the parties inter-se. A Civil suit was also filed with 2/6

respect to the said fat. It appears that in the said Civil suit, the parties amicably settled their dispute and filed consent terms entered into between them. The said consent terms are at Exh. 'C' at page no. 40. The said consent terms were filed in S.C. Suit No. 766t of 2011 in the Bombay City Civil Court, at Mumbai.

Pursuant to the consent terms, a consent decree was passed on 1t/04/2022, by the City Civil Court. One of the terms of settlement was, that the Respondent No. 2, withdraws all allegations as against the Applicants and give her no objection, for quashing of the F.I.R./ Complaint/ Proceeding, initiated at her behest.

The Respondent No. 2 has filed her afdavit which is at page no. 476 of the application. The said afdavit dated 28/076/2022 is duly afrmed before the Notary. In the said afdavit, the Respondent No. 2 has stated that she has resolved and settled the dispute between the Applicants and that she has no objection for quashing of the 3/6

F.I.R./complaint registered at her behest. She also does not dispute the fact, that consent terms have been filed in the suit and that the said suit has been decreed in terms of the consent terms, on 1t/04/2022. The Respondent No. 2 is present in person. When questioned, the Respondent No. 2 re-iterates what is stated by her, in her afdavit. Leearned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has tendered a self attested xerox copy of the Aadhar card of the Respondent No. 2. The same is taken on record. She is identified by her counsel and learned APP has verified the original Aadhar card of the Respondent No. 2.

It appears that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the aforesaid C.R. and the case is presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 1tth Court Esplanade, Mumbai, being CC No. 161/PW/2004.

Considering the nature of dispute, the amicable settlement between the parties and the consent terms 4/6

entered into between them, the consent decree passed by the City Civil Court, the afdavit of the Respondent No. 2 and the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.1 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.2, there is no impediment in allowing the application. t The application is accordingly allowed and the FIR bearing M.E.C.R. No. 11 of 2003 registered with the Colaba Police Station, Mumbai is quashed and set aside and consequently, the proceeding arising from the said C.R. which is pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 1tth Court Esplanade, Mumbai, being CC No. 161/PW/2004, is also quashed and set-aside.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Application is disposed of accordingly.

(2012) 10 SCC 303 (2014) 6 SCC 466 5/6

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

[S. M. MODAK, J.] [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.] 6/6