Girish Prabhudas Lotia v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

* 1/4 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3118 OF 2017 Girish Prabhudas Lotia ....Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

....Respondents Ms. Trupti R. Shetty, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. Ms. Mallika Ingale,Advocate for Respondent No.2. ****** CORAM :- CORAM :- R.M. SAVANT & R.M. SAVANT & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :- DATE :- 22ND AUGUST, 2017.

22ND AUGUST, 2017.

P.C. :- P.C. :- The above Criminal Writ Petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside MECR No.7 of 2017 registered with Khar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 448 of the IPC. Parties are closely related to each other. The Original Complainant (Respondent No.2), i.e., Rashmi V. Lotia is the uncle and the Petitioner, Girish Prabhudas Lotia is the nephew. The dispute has arisen out of the purchase of immovable property by the Petitioner. The grievance of the complainant was in respect of taking over of the flat in question by the Petitioner.

* 2/4 * Be that as it may, the parties have settled the matter and have reduced the settlement into writing by way of 'Consent Terms' dated 26.7.2017 which has been executed before the Notary Public of the Government of India Shri S.V.Takle having registration no.3328. The 'Consent Terms' bear Notarial Register No.50311 dated 26.7.2017. The 'Consent Terms' have been signed by the parties as also the witnesses, the first one being Ashok K. Malaviya and the second one Mr. Manoharlal Jethamal Nebhnani Page 120. It is required to be noted that the Respondent No.2 had originally made a complaint to the police which is at page 25, i.e, the complaint addressed to the Senior Inspector of Police, Khar Police Station dated 5.4.2017. Since no cognizance of the complaint dated 5.4.2017 was taken, provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

came to be invoked by one Navnit Virchand Lotia in respect of the same subject matter. Respondent No.2 is presently 80 years of age and it is on his behalf that the said complaint came to be filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit bearing today's date, i.e., 22.8.2017.

* 3/4 * material and are re-produced hereunder:

"7 I say that the dispute between the Petitioner herein/Original Accused and me, which is a subject matter of MECR No.07/2017 registered at Khar Police Station, Mumbai has been amicably settled and that I have no objection, if the said MECR No.07/2017 registered at Khar Police Station is quashed.

I say that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said MECR No.07/2017 registered at Khar Police Station may be quashed."

Hence, the 'Consent Terms' dated 26.7.2017 and the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 unequivocally point out that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Respondent No.2 is personally present in Court. He has been identified by the learned counsel Ms. Mallika Ingale. He is accompanied by the witness to the Consent Terms, Mr. Manoharlal Nebhnani. The said Nebhnani is also identified by the learned counsel Ms. Ingale. He is also identified by his Adhar Card No.8073 5605 6240. On being querried through the witness Mr. Nebhnani, the Respondent No.2 states that the affidavit tendered by the learned counsel Ms. Ingale is his and that he has signed the said affidavit on his own free will and volition on account of settlement that is arrived at between the

* 4/4 * parties. In view of the 'Consent Terms' dated 26.7.2017 and in view of the affidavit and having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, there is no impediment in quashing the proceedings 6 SCC 466, there is no impediment in quashing the proceedings though the offences alleged are non-compoundable. Dictum of the though the offences alleged are non-compoundable. Dictum of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in reported in (2012) (2012) 10 SCC 303 10 SCC 303 would also lead to the same conclusion. No useful would also lead to the same conclusion.

No useful purpose would therefore be served by keeping the proceedings purpose would therefore be served by keeping the proceedings pending. Hence, the above Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly pending. Hence, the above Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (R.M. SAVANT, J) (R.M.