Bombay High Court

MDANLAL MOHANLAL BOHARA AND ANRversusKAMLA YASHWANT KOLEKAR AND ANR

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2 under its inherent powers, as the complainant consented to the settlement and there was no longer any prospect of conviction.

Summary

The petitioners, accused Nos.1 and 11 in a criminal case under IPC sections 420 and 34, sought quash of the proceedings filed by the complainant, Kamla Yashwant Kolekar, who alleged cheating in a property allotment. The complainant, now 92 years old, filed an Affidavit cum Consent stating she no longer wishes to pursue the case and has no objection to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, examined whether the settlement and the complainant’s consent justified dismissal. It held that, given the amicable settlement and the complainant’s clear consent, the chances of conviction were remote and the proceedings could be quashed. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2 (accused No.11) while noting that proceedings against petitioner No.1 were already abated due to his death.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings when the complainant consents to settlement.
Whether Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, supports the quashing of the proceedings in the present facts.
Whether the settlement between the parties and the complainant’s age and desire not to prosecute justify dismissal of the case.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 420, 423, 467, 468

Subjects

quash criminal proceedings
inherent jurisdiction
Section 482 CrPC
Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
settlement
complainant consent
IPC 420
IPC 34
abated proceedings

Judgment

1-WP-1718-2010.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1718 OF 2010.

1. Madanlal Mohanlal Bohara ]

2. Asha Shriniwas Bohra ] Petitioners
versus
1. Kamla Yashwant Kolekar ]

2. State of Maharashtra ] Respondents
.....
Mr. V.V. Katti a/w Mr. Umakant Waghmare (through V.C.), for Petitioner
No.2.

Mr. Ishaan Kapse a/w Ms. Shruti P. Ghodake and Mr. Tejas Patil, for
Respondent No.1.

Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, A.P.P, for Respondent No.2 – State.
Digitally
signed by
.....
SHAILAJA
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
HALKUDE Date:
2026.08.24
19:02:15
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
+0530
DATE : AUGUST 20, 2026
PER COURT :

1. Heard Mr. Katti, learned Advocate for Petitioner No.2, Mr.

Kapse, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, and Mr. Shalgaonkar, learned

A.P.P, for Respondent No. 2 – State.

2. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr. P. C.”), to quash the proceedings in

C.C. No.121 of 2007 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Ichalkaranji, (for short, “Magistrate”), as well as the order dated 4th

Shailaja Page 1 of 6
1-WP-1718-2010.odt

March 2010 passed below Exhibit 1 in Regular Criminal Case No.121 of

2007 whereby the learned Magistrate, issued process against the Petitioners

and 9 others for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”).

3. On Perusal of the record, it appears that this Court, by order

dated 12.01.2011, granted the Rule and the proceedings before the Magistrate

have been stayed. Also, it appears that during the pendency of the Petition,

Petitioner No.1 expired on 3rd May, 2021. Therefore, the proceedings, insofar

as against Petitioner No.1 is concerned, stand abated.

4. Learned Advocates appearing for Petitioner No.2 as well as

Respondent No.1 submit that the matter has been amicably settled between

the parties. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 has filed an Affidavit cum

Consent affirming that she has no objection to quashing of the proceedings

bearing R.C.C. No.121 of 2007 pending before the learned Magistrate as well

as the order of issuance of process dated 4th March, 2010. In view of the

settlement between the parties and the consent given by Respondent No.1,

the learned Advocates for the parties submit that the Petition may be disposed

of accordingly.

5. It appears that Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint before the

learned Magistrate alleging that accused Nos.1 to 11, being office bearers of

the Madanlal Bohara Co-op. Cloth Market Housing Society, Ichalkaranji, had
Shailaja Page 2 of 6
1-WP-1718-2010.odt

allotted Block No.189 (gala) and Plot No.19 to her. Despite the allotment of

the Block and plot and the delivery of possession, the said Block and plot

were allotted to accused No.11, i.e., Petitioner No.2, thereby cheating her.

This complaint was registered as R.C.C. No.121 of 2007. Upon recording the

statement of Respondent No.1, the learned J.M.F.C issued process against

Accused Nos.1 to 11 therein for the offences punishable under Section 420

read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The present Petitioners are Accused Nos.1

and 11 in the said proceedings. Accused No.1- Madanlal Mohanlal Bohara,

expired on 3rd May 2021.

6. Perused the Affidavit cum Consent submitted by Respondent

No.1, who is present in the Court. It would be appropriate to reproduce the

said Affidavit cum Consent, which reads as under;

AFFIDAVIT CUM CONSENT

“1. I, Smt. Kamala Yashwant Kolekar, age about 92 years,
residing at Krishnakamal Apartment, B-2, Zenda Chowk,
Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur, do hereby state on solemn affirmation-

2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1718/2010 have prayed
for quashing of proceedings pending in C.C. No. 121/07 pending on
the file of the Ld. JMFC, Ichalkaranji, as well as the Order of issue
of process dated 04.03.2010.

3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2912 of 2010 has filed the
petition challenging the Order dated 04.03.2010 in Regular
Criminal Case No. 121/2007 to the extent it dismisses the complaint
filed by the Petitioner for offence u/s 423, 467, 468 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. The Respondent, i.e. Kamala Yashwant Kolekar, in WP 1718
of 2010, after careful consideration the Respondent has voluntary
taken a decision without any duress, undue influence or coercion
Shailaja Page 3 of 6
1-WP-1718-2010.odt

that she does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings
against the Petitioner and has no objection if the said criminal
proceedings are quashed. The Respondent has taken this decision as
she is about 92 years of age and does not want to proceed with the
same.

5. I say that the Respondent, that is, Kamala Yashwant Kolekar,
has no objection if the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are
quashed. That the parties have been living in the same locality, and
villagers and those close by who are well-known to the parties have,
by way of talks, helped the parties to amicably settle the disputes
between them.

6. The petitioner also wishes to withdraw WP 2912 of 2010 in
view of the consent given by Kamala Yashwant Kolekar for quashing
of WP 1718 of 2010.

7. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the
share proceedings bearing C. C. no. 127/07 pending on the file of
Ld. JMFC Ichalkaranji, as well as the order of issue of process
dated 04.03.2010, quashed.”

7. A bare perusal of paragraph 4 of the Affidavit cum Consent

shows that the complainant has categorically stated that she is 92 years old

and, therefore, does not wish to proceed with the complaint. Accordingly, in

para 5, she has given her no objection to the quashing of the criminal

proceedings against the Petitioners.

8. Today, Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 – Kamla Yashwant

Kolekar are present in the Court. Respondent No.1 has confirmed that she

has filed an Affidavit cum Consent dated 1st July 2026. She has stated that the

contents of the said Affidavit are true and correct and that she has no

objection to quashing the complaint proceedings against the Petitioners.

Shailaja Page 4 of 6
1-WP-1718-2010.odt

9. Having considered the above facts and circumstances, it appears

that the parties have been living in the same locality. The villagers and other

persons known to both parties intervened and through discussions, helped

them to settle their disputes amicably. Thus, in my view, Respondent No.1 –

complainant does not wish to prosecute the case further. In view of this, the

chances of conviction are very remote, as the complainant is unlikely to

support the prosecution’s case. Moreover, the parties have amicably settled

their dispute.

10. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly the fact that the parties have settled their dispute and the

complainant has given her no objection to quashing of the proceeding in

R.C.C. No.121 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Magistrate as well

as the order of issue of process dated 4 th March, 2010, I deem it appropriate

to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.

P.C/ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

11. This Court is vested with inherent powers to secure the ends of

justice. There are no such limitations on the exercise of these powers. In the

present case, the peculiar facts show that neither party wishes to continue

with the prosecution; in particular, the complainant has given her no

objection to the quashing of the proceedings pending before the learned

Magistrate, as well as to the order of issuance of process dated 4th March,

Shailaja Page 5 of 6
1-WP-1718-2010.odt

2010. The law is made to secure the ends of justice and not to disrupt the

lives of the people.

12. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am

inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court and quash the

Proceedings in R.C.C. No.121 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned

Magistrate as well as the order of issuance of process dated 4 th March, 2010

passed by the learned Magistrate below, Exhibit 1 in R.C.C. No.121 of 2007.

13. As a result, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) qua

Petitioner No. 2 – original accused No.11 only.

14. Consequently, the proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.121 of 2007

pending on the file of the learned Magistrate as well as the order of issuance

of process dated 4th March, 2010 passed by the learned Magistrate below,

Exhibit 1 in Regular Criminal Case No.121 of 2007, are hereby quashed and

set aside qua Petitioner No. 2 – original accused No.11 only. Proceedings

against Petitioner No.1 are already abated.

15. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

16. The Petition is disposed of.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

Shailaja Page 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…