Sonal Navjeet Sharma @ Sonal Srinivasan v. Navjeet Jitendra Sharma And ORS

Sr.No.production - 8 WP 4129.15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4129 OF 2015 Mrs. Sonal Navjeet Sharma ..Petitioner

Versus

Navjeet Jitendra Sharma and ors.

..Respondents Mr. Mandar Soman i/b. Mr. A. D. Sarwate, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sham V. Walve, advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R. M. Gadhavi, APP for the State.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ.

DATE : 29th OCTOBER, 2015.

P. C. :

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

2.

The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting-aside FIR No.120 of 2014 registered with Lashkar Police Station, Pune, at the instance of respondent No.1, against the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3.

Pending investigation, the parties have settled their dispute amicably, and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, have approached this Court for quashing and setting-aside the subject FIR by consent. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit dated Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

Sr.No.production - 8 WP 4129.15 9th October, 2015. In paragraphs 8 and 9, he has given his no objection for quashing and setting-aside the subject FIR. Respondent No.1 is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, he specifically stated that he has gone through the affidavit and has understood the contents thereof, and he has no objection, if the subject FIR is quashed and set-aside against the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

4.

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Perusal of the complaint, makes it clear 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 criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, the subject FIR is required to be quashed and setaside. The petition is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) and is disposed of as such.

[R. G. KETKAR, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 2/2