Bombay High Court
BALIRAM DHARMA SALPI AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that, given the settlement between the parties and the complainant's consent, the criminal case could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Summary
The applicants sought quashing of a criminal case (C.R. No.168 of 2012) filed under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 34 IPC alleging forgery of documents to obtain land. During the pendency of the trial, the parties reconciled; the applicants returned possession of the land to the complainant through a Reconveyance Deed dated 21‑08‑2012 and the complainant filed a consent affidavit on 24‑07‑2023 stating he had no further grievance. The court examined the settlement and, noting that the dispute was resolved and the complainant consented, exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The court also ordered the applicants to pay Rs.15,000 to the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund as costs. The application was allowed and the criminal case was discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the private parties have settled the dispute and the complainant consents to the quash.
- Whether the settlement and consent affidavit remove the public interest element sufficient to sustain the prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 34, 420, 468, 471
Subjects
- quash
- Section 482
- criminal proceeding
- settlement
- consent affidavit
- reconveyance deed
- forgery
- IPC sections 420, 468, 471, 120B, 34
- costs
- police welfare fund
Judgment
44.APL.252.2022.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.252 OF 2022
Baliram Dharma Salpi and Anr. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Mihir M. Linge, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms. Anuja Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Kashyap Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 21, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Linge, learned Advocate for Applicants; Ms.
Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Bhalerao, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
2. This is an Application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with C.R. No.168 of
2012 registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan,
District – Thane.
3. Applicants are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 and 2 have
approached this Court seeking quashing of complaint which came to be
registered at the instance of private Respondent No.2 who is the
Complainant on 07.04.2012 vide C.R.No.168 of 2012 for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian
1 of 3
44.APL.252.2022.doc
Penal Code, 1860.
4. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that Applicants
committed forgery of certain documents, whereby they grabbed the
land belonging to the Respondent No.2. However, on the complaint
being lodged and criminal action being invoked and investigation
being done the matter is pending before the Trial Court. However, in
the interregnum, the Applicants and Respondent No.2 have reconciled
their dispute by virtue of the Applicants having handed over the
possession of the subject land back to the Respondent No.2. Both
Applicants are present before me and Respondent No.2 is also present
in Court. I have interacted with them and Respondent No.2 would
submit that he has received possession of his lands, which is the
subject matter of the complaint lodged by him. That statement stands
recorded. Respondent No.2’s Consent Affidavit dated 24.07.2023 is
taken on record and appended at page No.107. Learned Advocate has
drawn my attention at page No.98 which is the Reconveyance Deed
dated 21.08.2012 and would submit that by virtue of the Deed of
Reconveyance, the land has been returned back to the private
Respondent No.2.
5. Respondent No.2 acknowledges the Deed and submits that
he has received possession of the same land. The Consent Affidavit is
filed which submits that the Respondent No.2 has no further
2 of 3
44.APL.252.2022.doc
grievances with regard to the pending complaint against the Applicants
and therefore, I give consent for quashing of the same.
6. Since this is private issue between two private parties and
the cause of action stands settled, and the Complainant having
received his land back in 2012 itself, there can be no impediment in
allowing the Petition. However in order to send a message across to
such litigants who invoke criminal action and then ultimately decide to
quash the same after many years, I direct the Applicants to pay costs of
Rs. 15,000 to the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund bearing Account No:
465010100008693 and IFSC Code - UTIB0000465 in Axis Bank
Limited.
7. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (I) and (ii)
which read thus:-
“i That this Hon’ble Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. be pleased to quash Regular Criminal Case. No. 198 of
2013 arising out of C.R. No. I – 168 of 2012 of Mahatma Phule
Chowk Police Station, Kalyan Dist. Thane, pending to the file of
the LD. JMFC, Kalyan.
ii. That the applicants be discharged from all the charges levelled
against them and they be set at liberty. ”
8. Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
SAWANT
HANUMANT Date:
SAWANT 2026.08.21
20:34:01
+0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…