RAJA RAM MUKHERJEEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                        916-WP-2154-2026.doc


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 2154 OF 2026
Raja Ram Mukherjee                                     … Petitioner
      Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Anr.                        … Respondents
                                     -----
Senior Advocate Mr. Girish Kulkarni a/w Madhusudan Pareek,
Mrunmai Kulkarni and Parth Bhanushali, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jacob Manoharan, for the Respondent No. 2
Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for the Respondent – State.
                                 -------

                                CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
                                 DATE : 30th April, 2026.
P.C. :


1.       This Petition is circulated pursuant to the praecipe dated

29.04.2026. It is taken on record and marked as “A” for

identification.



2.       Heard Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned Senior Advocate for the

Petitioner, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar learned APP for the Respondent

– State and Mr. Jacob Manoharan, learned Advocate for the

Respondent No. 2.



3.       This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Arjun                            1
                                                      916-WP-2154-2026.doc


and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,

is filed by the Petitioner seeking to quash the FIR No. 251 of 2012,

dated 15.10.2012, registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai

(hereinafter “impugned FIR”), for the offence punishable under

Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and the chargesheet bearing

C.C. No. 707/PW/2014, pending before the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, 44th Court, at Andheri, Mumbai.



4.      Mr. Girish Kulkarni and Mr. Jacob Manoharan submit that

the subject matter of the impugned FIR is a misunderstanding

amongst friends. They submit that the dispute arose due to a

misunderstanding between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.

2, which led the Respondent No. 2 to file a complaint that was

registered as the impugned FIR. They submit that, through the

initiative of the friends and well-wishers of the parties, the

Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2, having realized their

misunderstanding, have amicably resolved their dispute. They

submit that, in view of the settlement, the Respondent No. 2 has

affirmed an Affidavit dated 29.04.2026, stating her no objection to

the quashing of the criminal proceedings filed against the


Arjun                          2
                                                        916-WP-2154-2026.doc


Petitioner. They therefore request the quashing of the criminal

proceedings filed against the Petitioner.



5.      The Petitioner is present in Court and is identified by Mr.

Girish Kulkarni, learned Senior Advocate. He tenders a photocopy

of the identity card of the Petitioner, which is taken on record and

marked as “X” for identification.



6.      Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and is identified by her

Advocate Mr. Jacob Manoharan. He submits a photocopy of

Respondent No. 2's identity card, which is taken on record and

marked as “X-1” for identification.



7.      Mr. Jacob Manoharan states that the Affidavit dated

29.04.2026 affirmed by the Respondent No. 2 before the Notary

Sheena Chetan Patil, is placed on record, same is marked as “X-2”

for identification.



8.      Respondent No. 2 states that she has filed the Affidavit (X-2)

of her own free will, without any force or coercion from anyone.

She states that the contents of the Affidavit (X-2) are true and as

Arjun                            3
                                                        916-WP-2154-2026.doc


per her say. She states that she and the Petitioner were friends and

it was only on account of a misunderstanding that she filed the

Complaint before the Police, which led to the registration of the

impugned FIR. She submits that, with the intervention of friends

and well-wishers of the Petitioner and herself, she has resolved her

differences with the Petitioner and has mutually settled the

dispute. She states that, in view of the settlement, she and the

Petitioner remain friends. She submits that she is not interested in

continuing with the criminal proceedings. She states that she will

not support the prosecution’s case .



9.      Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent –

State, submits that the subject matter of the impugned FIR being a

private   personal   dispute   between    the   Petitioner    and      the

Respondent No. 2, which is now amicably resolved amongst

themselves, the Respondent No. 1- State has no objection to the

quashing of the impugned FIR and the chargesheet. He however

submits that such personal dispute being taken to the police

station when it was not required is a fit case for imposition of costs

on the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2.


Arjun                           4
                                                       916-WP-2154-2026.doc


10.       Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned Senior Advocate for the

Petitioner and Mr. Jacob Manoharan, learned Advocate for the

Respondent No. 2, on instructions from the Petitioner and the

Respondent No. 2, state that they shall pay appropriate costs.



11.       Considering   the   facts   mentioned   hereinabove,        the

submissions of the learned Advocates, the amicable settlement

between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2, the statements

made by the Respondent No. 2 before this Court today and in her

Affidavit (X-2), the criminal proceedings pending since the year

2014, which are now being settled, the no objection given by the

Respondent No. 1-State to the quashing and the clear statement of

the Respondent No. 2 that she will not support the prosecution

case, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the

criminal proceedings.



12.       Having regards to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab1,

Narinder Singh And Ors vs State of Punjab And Anr 2                  and

1     2012 10 SCC 303

2     2014 6 SCC 466

Arjun                             5
                                                            916-WP-2154-2026.doc


Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai vs The State of Gujarat 3 , there is no

impediment in allowing this Petition.



13.       In view of the above, this Petition is allowed in terms of

prayer clause (b), subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- each

by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. Payment of costs is a

condition precedent. Consequently, the impugned FIR and the

chargesheet arising therefrom are quashed.



14.       The Petitioner shall deposit the cost of Rs. 50,000/- and the

Respondent No. 2 shall deposit the cost of Rs. 50,000/- in the

account mentioned below within three (4) weeks from today.


Account Name :                        Bar Council of Maharashtra and

                                      Goa Advocate Aid Fund.

Bank Name :                           State Bank of India

Branch Name :                         Mumbai Main Branch

Account Number :                      10996711937

IFSC Code :                           SBIN0000300

Type of Account :                     Saving A/c

3     2017 9 SCC 641

Arjun                             6
                                                                              916-WP-2154-2026.doc


                     15.     The compliance affidavit, along with the proof of deposit,

                     shall be filed by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 in the

                     Registry of this Court on or before 15.06.2026.


                     16.     Writ Petition No. 2154 of 2026 is disposed of.




                                                                 (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)




        Digitally
        signed by
        ARJUN
ARJUN   KRISHNA      Arjun                            7
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE   Date:
        2026.05.09
        13:53:12
        +0530