SUBHIR HARI GUPTA AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Sagar                                                 902-WP-2760-2013.doc

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2760 OF 2013
Sudhir Hari Gupta And Ors.                        … Petitioners
        Vs.
The State of Maharashtra And Ors.                 ... Respondents
                  _______________________________

Ms. Yogita Deshmukh Chitnisi i/b Jeenal Upadhyay for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Trisha Kadu-Thakur for the Respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2 present in person.
                    _______________________________

                  CORAM       : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE , J.
                  DATED       : 27th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P. C. :-

1.          The present Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

seeking to quash and set aside the proceedings being C.R. No.I-114 of

2013 registered with Manikpur Police Station for the offence punishable

under section 354, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

2.          Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, during the

pendency of the present Petition, the parties i.e. Respondent No. 2 and

the Petitioners have settled their disputes amicably. She submits that a

Consent Affidavit dated 21st February 2026 and 25th February 2026 duly

notarized before the Notary Public has been filed by Respondent No. 2.



                                                                       1/7
Sagar                                                   902-WP-2760-2013.doc

That, the proceedings were filed due to certain misunderstandings and at

the behest of the husband of Respondent No. 2.

3.           Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and reiterates the

contents of the Consent Affidavit. Learned Advocate for the Respondent

No. 2 identified the Respondent No. 2 and has tendered the copy of the

Aadhar Card of Respondent No. 2. The same is taken on record and

marked as ‘X’ for identification.

4.           Respondent No. 2 in her consent Affidavit narrated all the

facts which gave rise to filing of the present FIR. Respondent No. 2 has

specifically stated that, the FIR in question has been filed by her at the

instance of her husband. Respondent No. 2 has specifically stated that the

Respondent No. 2 and her husband resided at Flat No. 13, 1 st floor, Amrut

Sagar Building, Palghar and the said flat was occupied by them on Leave

and License basis. That, the said flat was owned by Mr. Yogesh A. Patel and

Mr. Nirav A. Patel and that there were certain disputes in respect of the

possession of the said flat. That, husband of Respondent No. 2 filed FIR

bearing No. I-29 of 2013 in relation to the flat against Mr. Yogesh Patel and

others wherein the said accused were represented by Petitioner No. 1 and

an Advocate Tejal Thakur. On 4 th May 2018, the accused therein were

acquitted.

5.           That, Ms. Rita Yogesh Patel (wife of Mr. Yogesh Patel) has filed

FIR bearing No.I-34 of 2013 under Sections 354(a)(1)(iii), 354(D), 447,

                                                                       2/7
Sagar                                                  902-WP-2760-2013.doc

504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the

Respondent No. 2 and her husband. That, the Bail Application filed by the

Respondent No. 2 and her husband were opposed by the Petitioner No. 1

Mr. Sudhir Gupta and Advocate Ms. Tejal Thakur. The Respondent No. 2

and her husband were arrested in the said crime. That due to the said

conduct, the Respondent No. 2 and her husband had filed FIR bearing No.

I-38 of 2013 under Sections 447, 454, 457, 380, 427 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner No. 1, Advocate Ms. Tejal

Thakur, Mrs. Rita Patel, Mr. Yogesh Patel, Mr. Nirav Patel and their family

members and friends. In the said FIR, pursuant to the investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed report under Section 169 of CrPC stating that

there was no evidence against the Petitioner/accused. That, the husband

of Respondent No. 2 filed one more C.R. No. 63 of 2013 against the

Petitioner No. 1 and others in which “B-Summary Report” was filed.

6.          In para 11 of Additional Affidavit, Respondent No. 2 has

stated that, her husband was having suspicion that the said Mr. Patel and

his family were acting on the instructions of Mr. Sudhir Gupta and

Advocate Tejal Thakur. That, due to the said suspicion, influence and

pressure of her husband, Respondent No. 2 filed the present FIR against

the Patel family, Mr. Sudhir Gupta and Adv. Tejal Thakur.

7.          That, in C.R. No. 38 of 2013 filed against Petitioner No. 1 and

Advocate Tejal Thakur, on 10th May 2013, Anticipatory Bail Applications

                                                                     3/7
Sagar                                                    902-WP-2760-2013.doc

was taken up for the hearing. After the hearing, the husband of

Respondent No. 2 started quarreling with the Petitioners and attacked

Petitioner No. 1. That, Petitioner No. 1 filed N.C. bearing No. 580 of 2013

against the husband of Respondent No. 2.

8.           That, Mr. Yogesh Patel and Mr. Niraj Patel filed Special Civil

Suit No. 27 of 2013 against the Respondent No. 2 and her husband for

declaration of ownership and possession of the said flat. On 7 th October

2013, Respondent No. 2 and her husband filed Special Civil Suit No. 56 of

2013 against Mr. Yogesh A. Patel and Nirav Patel for recovery of possession

of the said flat. Respondent No. 2 states that, both the suits are filed in

respect of the same Flat No. 13. That, the Respondent No. 2 and her

husband due to matrimonial disputes have parted ways. That, Respondent

No. 2, then filed for divorce Petition-A No. 12 of 2023 before the learned

Family Court at Thane. That, on 3rd December 2025, the divorce decree on

the grounds of cruelty has been pronounced.

9.           The Respondent No. 2 in para 16 of the Additional Affidavit

has stated that after divorce, she is currently practicing at Palghar District

and Sessions Court. That, after said divorce proceedings the Respondent

No. 2 does not wish to proceed with the ongoing litigations. That, the

Respondent No. 2 has withdrawn her name from all the civil litigations in

respect of the Flat. That, the Respondent No. 2 has not asked for any

maintenance from her husband and is not a beneficiary of any property of

                                                                        4/7
Sagar                                                 902-WP-2760-2013.doc

her ex-husband.

10.         The Respondent No. 2 has specifically stated that, she intends

to start a new life and make a fresh start in her profession. That for

professional commitments she is required to travel. That, due to the

pending criminal proceedings she is facing difficulties in her day to day

life. That, the Respondent No. 2 has apologized to the Petitioners and does

not wish to continue with the litigation.

11.         In paragraph 17 of the Additional Affidavit, Respondent No. 2

has stated that, after discussing the matter with the Petitioners she has

now realized that, whatever had been informed to her was incorrect and

she has now realized that, the proceeding initiated by her was due to a

misunderstanding. That, considering the conduct of the Petitioners,

Respondent No. 2 decided to give her consent for quashing of the present

FIR which was filed against the Petitioner. In paragraph 19 of the

Additional Affidavit, Respondent No. 2 has specifically stated that the

Affidavit has been filed by her voluntarily and without any undue

pressure, coercion or fraud.

12.         Learned APP submits that, the police have already filed report

before JMFC, Vasai in C. R. No. 114 of 2013 for deleting Section 354 and

323 of the IPC. That, a report has been filed stating that, there is no

evidence to file chargesheet against the Petitioner under Sections 509,

504, 34 of the IPC. Learned APP further submits that the Investigating

                                                                     5/7
Sagar                                                 902-WP-2760-2013.doc

Officer has filed A-Summary report in the present C.R. No. 114 of 2013

before JMFC, Vasai.

13.         Perusal of the Affidavit, indicates that the Respondent No. 2

had to file the present criminal and the civil proceedings due to the

pressure of her ex-husband and/or with an attempt to safeguard the flat.

14.         It appears that the cross complaints have been filed due to

certain misunderstandings. The Respondent No. 2 has already withdrawn

from the civil proceedings. The Respondent No. 2 has settled the matter

with the Petitioners. The Respondent No. 2 has separated from her ex-

husband and now leads an independent life.

15.         The scope of the High Court's inherent power under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been elaborately discussed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab

(2014) 6 SCC 466. The Supreme Court categorically held that the power to

quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code is distinct and

different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding

offences under Section 320 of the Code. Even in cases involving non-

compoundable offences, the High Court possesses the inherent jurisdiction

to quash the proceedings where the parties have settled the matter

between themselves. While this power is not to be exercised in

prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or

crimes against society, criminal cases having an overwhelmingly and

                                                                    6/7
Sagar                                                   902-WP-2760-2013.doc

predominantly civil character, or where the wrong is basically private or

personal in nature, should be quashed when the parties have resolved

their entire disputes. The ultimate guiding factors for the Court in

exercising this inherent power are to secure the ends of justice or to

prevent the abuse of the process of any court. In the present case, as the

parties have amicably resolved their private dispute and decided to live

peacefully in the future, continuing the criminal proceedings would be

contrary to the interest of justice. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice

and promote harmony between the parties, this Court finds it appropriate

to accept the settlement and quash the FIR and all consequent

proceedings.

16.       Considering the above facts and circumstances more particularly

detailed in Affidavit and Additional Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2,

I am inclined to quash the proceeding being C.R. No.I-114 of 2013

registered with the Manikpur Police Station, District Thane.

17.       In view thereof, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).




                                  (RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)




                                                                       7/7