Mahesh Satuji Tikkal v. The State Of Maharashtra
912_ABA1531_24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1531 OF 2024 Mahesh Satuji Tikkal ...
Applicant Vs.
State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent Mr. Prasad Avhad i/b. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam for Applicant. Ms. Rutuja A. Ambekar, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Advait Uday Shukla for First Informant.
Mr. Saheba Pote, API, Vimantal Police Station, Pune City. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 27, 2024 P.C. :
.
Heard Mr. Avhad, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ambekar, learned APP for the respondent-State, as also Mr. Shukla, learned counsel having instructions to appear on behalf of the first informant. 2.
On 14.06.2024, this Court issued notice to the first informant and granted interim relief in favour of the applicant, subject to specific directions after recording that a prima facie case was made out for granting such interim relief.
3.
The interim relief continued to operate from time to time. 4.
On 02.09.2024, the learned counsel, having instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2 i.e. the first informant, also apprised this Court that the parties were in the process of amicably resolving their disputes and in that backdrop, hearing of the application was adjourned with the interim relief being continued.
5.
Today, when the application is called out for hearing, an MINAL SANDIP PARAB by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date: 2024.11.27 17:05:51 +0530 additional affidavit is tendered on behalf of the applicant. The same is 1/2
912_ABA1531_24.doc taken on record. The contents of the affidavit show that the applicant and the first informant have now agreed to settle the dispute for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, of which, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been already paid to the first informant by way of Demand Draft dated 26.11.2024. It is agreed between the parties that the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- would be paid by way of Demand Draft, when a petition (contemplated to be filed) for quashing of the FIR is taken up for hearing. 6.
Since the grievance of the first informant against the applicant has its roots in a civil / commercial dispute, which appears to have been amicably settled between them, it would be appropriate that the interim order granted by this Court is confirmed and the application itself is allowed.
7.
Hence, the interim order dated 14.06.2024 is made absolute and the application is allowed.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) Minal Parab 2/2