Jasleen Surinderjit Singh Alias Jasleen Surinderjit Singh Karu v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1796 OF 2025 Jasleen Surinderjit Singh alias Jasleen Surinderjit Singh Kaur ..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents __________ Mr. Tejas Vijaykumar Dhotre for Petitioner.

Smt. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State/Respondent.

Mr. Aditya Lele for the Respondent No.2.

__________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 28 APRIL 2025 PC :

1.

This is a petition for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the C.R.No.419 of 2024 registered at Bandra police station, on 15.03.2024, U/s.420 of the I.P.C.

2.

The F.I.R. is lodged by the Respondent No.2. He has stated that, he was fond of buying expensive wrist watches as a hobby. He used to purchase the wrist watches from Ethos Watch Group, New Delhi. The Petitioner was working with that company. As the usual course of business, the informant used to send the Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date:

2025.05.02 11:51:32 +0530 VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE

purchase price through bank account link or through R.T.G.S. and then within two days he used to get the watches. On 28.08.2023, the Petitioner told the informant that she had a Rolex watch available for sale. She quoted the price of Rs.12 lakhs. She sent a photograph of the watch. The informant liked the watch. He wanted to buy it. The Petitioner told him that he had to pay Rs.7 lakhs in the bank account of the owner of the watch and Rs.5 lakhs were required to be paid through cash; for that purpose one Ibrahim who had to come to Mumbai would take that cash. Accordingly, the informant transferred Rs.7 lakhs through R.T.G.S. and gave Rs.5 lakhs in cash to the said Ibrahim. But thereafter he did not receive the watch. On enquiry, he came to know that the Petitioner was removed from that company. She was not responding to his calls. Since he pursued the matter continuously, she gave two cheques of Rs.6 lakhs each, but the cheques were dishonoured. On these allegations the F.I.R. was lodged. 3.

Now, the matter is settled between the parties. The Respondent No.2 has filed his Affidavit. He has stated that, he has received Rs.12 lakhs in three installments. He has no grievance

any more against the Petitioner. They have entered into the compromise deed executed on 30.09.2024. The Affidavit makes a reference to the compromise deed. It is mentioned that the dispute regarding the F.I.R. has been amicably settled between both the parties and the F.I.R. was registered due to miscommunication. 4.

The first informant is present before the Court. He is identified by his learned counsel. The informant stated before the Court that he has no objection for quashing of the F.I.R. 5.

We have considered these submissions. The dispute between the parties is purely personal in nature. They have settled the dispute. Though, the Affidavit of the informant does not specifically mention about no objection for quashing of the F.I.R., since he is present in the Court, he is identified by his learned counsel and he makes a statement before the Court that he does not have objection for quashing of the F.I.R., we are inclined to allow this petition. It is noteworthy to mention that the compromise deed and the petition show that the Respondent No.2 has received his entire amount. In this situation, we are inclined to

allow this petition.

6.

Hence, the following order:

O R D E R

i) The F.I.R. registered vide the C.R.No.419 of 2024 registered at Bandra police station, on 15.03.2024, U/s.420 of the I.P.C is quashed and set aside.

ii) The Writ Petition is disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)