Bombay High Court
KISHOR KAPOORCHAND PORWALversusNEERAJ PRAKASH OSWAL AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The Court quashed the FIR No.148/2025 and the chargesheet against the petitioner (Accused No.2) subject to payment of costs.
Summary
The petitioner, Kishor Kapoorchand Porwal, filed a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quash of FIR No.148/2025 and the accompanying chargesheet, alleging that he was merely a mediator in an extortion case and not a principal offender. The complainant, Neeraj Prakash Oswal, executed an affidavit withdrawing all allegations against the petitioner, stating that the petitioner was a scapegoat and that the dispute had been amicably settled. The High Court examined precedents such as Lovely Salhotra v. State and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which allow quashing of criminal proceedings when the alleged offender has no substantive case against him and the victim has settled the dispute. Relying on these authorities and the settlement affidavit, the Court held that there was no impediment to quash the FIR and chargesheet against the petitioner. The petition was allowed, the FIR and chargesheet were quashed against the petitioner, and he was directed to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and chargesheet can be quashed in part against the petitioner (Accused No.2) on the ground of amicable settlement and withdrawal of complaint.
- Whether the settlement between the complainant and the petitioner suffices to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC despite the offences not being compoundable.
- Whether Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are applicable to quash the proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 308(1), 308(2), 3(5)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- amicable settlement
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- extortion
- co-accused
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
Digitally signed (912) -WP-375.26.DOCX
by LAXMIKANT
GOPAL
LAXMIKANT CHANDAN
GOPAL Date:
CHANDAN 2026.02.17 lgc
14:33:35
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.375 OF 2026
Kishor Kapoorchand Porwal : Petitioner.
Versus
1] Neeraj Prakash Oswal & anr. : Respondents.
-------
Mr. Saket Ketkar a/w Ms Vidya Pingale i/by Advocate Dinkle
Vithalani for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vaibhav R Shah for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Pallavi N Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Kishor Porwal – Petitioner, present
Mr. Neeraj Oswal – Respondent No.1 present.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 12 FEBRUARY 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard Mr. Saket Ketkar, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, Ms. Pallavi N Dabholkar, learned APP for the
Respondent/State, and Mr. Vaibhav Shah, learned Advocate
for Respondent No.1.
2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
1
(912) -WP-375.26.DOCX
Sanhita, is preferred by the Petitioner (Accused No.2) against
the FIR bearing No.148 of 2025 dated 18 June 2025
registered with the Khopoli Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 308(1), 308(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the chargesheet bearing
RCC No.230 of 2025 pending before the JMFC, Khalapur.
District Raigad. Said FIR was lodged at the instance of the
Respondent No.1 (Complainant).
3. The Petitioner is present in Court and is identified by
Advocate Mr. Saket Ketkar. Photostat copy of the Identity Card
of the Petitioner is taken on record and marked “X” for
identification.
4. The Respondent No.1 is present in Court and is
identified by his Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Shah. Photostat copy of
the Identity Card of the Respondent No1 is taken on record
and marked “X-1” for identification.
5. Mr. Saket Ketkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
submits that the allegations of extortion and other offences
are all against the main Accused No.1 (i.e. Kishor Salunke).
He submits that even the demand for money as also the
payment of the money by the Respondent No.2 is in respect of
the Accused No.1. He submits that the Petitioner herein was
implicated in the crime on account of his presence and he
acting as a mediator to facilitate the transfer of the amount.
He submits that the entire charge sheet does not attribute or
make out any case of extortion as against the Petitioner. He
2
(912) -WP-375.26.DOCX
submits that the Respondent No.1, having realized the
mistake of making allegations against the Petitioner, has
amicably resolved the matter with the Petitioner.
6. Mr. Saket Ketkar states that the Petitioner has amicably
settled and resolved all the disputes with the Respondent
No.1, and therefore, he prays that the impugned FIR qua the
Petitioner (Accused No.2) be quashed.
7. Mr. Vaibhav Shah, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.1, submits that the Petitioner was implicated in the crime
on the basis of a misunderstanding. He submits that upon the
said misunderstanding being cleared, the Petitioner and the
Respondent No.1 have amicably settled the matter. He
submits that the Respondent No.1 has no objection for
quashing of the impugned FIR and the chargesheet as against
the Petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Shah states that the Respondent
No.1 maintains all the allegations against the Accused No.1
(Kishor Salunke) in the FIR bearing No.148 of 2025 dated 18
June 2025 registered with the Khopoli Police Station.
8. Mr. Vaibhav Shah states that the Consent Affidavit dated
14 January 2026 affirmed by the Respondent No.1 before
Notary Ankush Sukhdev Mandlik is placed on record as
Exhibit-B ( at page nos. 374 to 378 of the paper book), same
is marked “X-2” for identification.
9. Respondent No.1 – Neeraj Prakash Oswal states that the
Affidavit (X-2) is filed out of his own free will and without any
3
(912) -WP-375.26.DOCX
pressure or coercion from any person and the contents of the
Affidavit (X-2) are as per his say. Paragraph Nos. 1 to 8 of the
Affidavit (X-2) are transcribed herein below :-
1. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by me with the
Khopoli Police Station, the said Khopoli Police Station
has registered F.I.R. No 148 of 2025 dated
18/06/2025 under sections 308(1), 308(2) and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyava Sanhita (BNS) against
Accused No. 1 Mr. Kishore Sidram Salunke and the
said Petitioner / Accused No. 2
2 I say that I am hereby willing to withdraw the
allegations against the sard Petitioner Accused No. 2
in the subject matter case, and I do not wish to
continue with the litigation against the said
Petitioner, since he had no role in the said crime and
He has not made any demand, threat or inducement,
nor he has committed any illegal act. Moreover, said
Petitioner/Accused No.2 was made a scapegoat at the
behest of Accused No. 1
3. I say that I do not wish to proceed with my
complaint against the Accused No. 2/ Petitioner
hereinabove since he had only acted as an
intermediary on Informant request, He had
approached Accused No.1 who had the whole
intention to extort money for his malafide gains &
unjust enrichment and on the request of Informant,
the petitioner was assisting him to avoid further
collusion and demand of extortion on behalf of
Accused No. 1.
4. I strongly believe that the said Petitioner has been
made as a co-accused only due to misunderstanding
and in a fit of rage due to the circumstances which
prevailed at that time when the Accused No.1 was
pressurizing & threatening the Complainant for
ransom money and demanded the same through the
Petitioner who only acted as a middleman and had
no intention of extorting money from Complainant.
5. I state that the said petitioner/Accused No.2 has
not derived any financial or other benefit from the
alleged incident and had no criminal intention to
defraud me in whatsoever manner.
6. I say that the complainant intends to settle the
dispute with the present Petitioner/Accused No. 2
4
(912) -WP-375.26.DOCX
and this Affidavit is furnished in support of the
Petitioner in order to enable the Petitioner to seek the
quashing of subject matter F.I.R and Chargesheet
alongwith the proceedings pending before the Ld.
Civil Judge Junior Division at Khalapur in RCC
bearing No. 230 of 2025 in this Hon'ble High Court.
7. 1 say that the present Affidavit is furnished before
this Hon'ble High Court only for the partial quashing
of the F.L.R. and with the Charge Sheet qua
Petitioner. The Complainant intends to contest the
subject matter case against the Accused No. 1 who is
the main culprit. The Complainant is willing to
withdraw the allegations against the Accused No.
2/said Petitioner.
8. I repeat & reiterate that if the FIR alongwith the
Charge Sheet is not quashed against the present
Petitioner then grave prejudice & irreparable loss
would be caused to him. “
10. The issue as to whether the FIR can be quashed in part
is no more res-integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Lovely Salhotra and Anr. Vs. State, NCT of Delhi 1 in
paragraph No.4 has observed as follows :-
4. We have taken into account the fact of the matter
in question as it appears to us that no cognizable
offence is made out against the appellant-herein. The
High court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R.
cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have
appreciated the fact that the appellants-herein cannot
be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint
filed by Respondent No.2- herein only on the ground
that the investigation against co-accused is still
pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned
Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out
against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie."
11. The decision of Lovely Salhotra (Supra) was followed by
this Court in the Court of Alpesh Arvindbhai Patel & ors. Vs.
1
2017 SCC OnLine SC 636
5
(912) -WP-375.26.DOCX
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. in Writ Petition No.3721 of
2018, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mrs. Poonam Khanna
Vs. State & ors. and Sunil tomar Vs. The State of NCT of
Delhi.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.2 in paragraph 58 has observed as
follows :-
“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute
between the offender and the victim has been settled
although offences are not compoundable, it does so
as in its opinion, continuation of criminal
proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice
in the case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is restored;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have
harmful effect on the public and consist in
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens
well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave
the crime-doer only because he and the victim have
settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has
been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have
been made compoundable in law, with or without
permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of
mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral
turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity, the
settlement between offender and victim can have no
legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour
having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial,
financial, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where
the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender
and the victim have settled all disputes between
them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such
offences have not been made compoundable, the
High Court may within the framework of its inherent
2
(2012) 10 SCC 303
6
(912) -WP-375.26.DOCX
power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of
such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of
offender being convicted and by not quashing the
criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is
illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend
on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be
prescribed."
13. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Kukesh Raute Vs. State of Goa, in Criminal Writ Petition No.
203 of 2025, and in the case of Roshani w/o Yogesh Bhongade
and Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application
No.1386 of 2023, which were cases involving offences
pertaining to extortion, on amicable settlement between the
parties, have accepted the settlement and quashed the
criminal proceedings in exercise of the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court
of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No.5126 of 2020 has
after having accepted amicable settlement in a criminal case
wherein offences of extortion were involved, had quashed the
FIR.
14. Ms. Pallavi N Dabholkar, learned APP for the State
submits that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 having
settled the matter and considering the statements made by the
Respondent No.1 in the Affidavit (X-2), no purpose would be
served in continuing with the Criminal proceedings as against
the Petitioner. She insists for imposition of costs on the
Petitioner.
7
(912) -WP-375.26.DOCX
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, as stated by Mr. Saket Ketkar and Mr. Vaibhav Shah, and
the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Courts, referred to herein
above, there is no impediment in allowing this Petition qua
the Petitioner.
16. Mr. Saket Ketkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on
instructions from the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is
willing to pay appropriate costs. Accordingly, the Petitioner is
directed to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.
17. Consequently, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (A) subject to payment of the costs of Rs.1,00,000/- as
a condition precedent. Consequently, the impugned FIR
bearing No.148 of 2025 registered with the Khopoli Police
Station and the Chargesheet bearing RCC No.230 of 2025 are
quashed qua the Petitioner (Accused No.2).
18. It is clarified that the criminal proceedings in respect of
the FIR bearing No.148 of 2025 registered with the Khopoli
Police Station and the Chargesheet bearing RCC No.230 of
2025 shall proceed as against the Accused No.1 (Kishor
Salunke).
19. The Petitioner, who is present in Court, undertakes to
deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the below mentioned
Accounts within a period of two weeks from today and file
compliance Affidavit along with proof of deposit in the
Registry of this Court on or before 09 March 2026.
8
(912) -WP-375.26.DOCX
a) Out of total costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Petitioner shall
deposit Rs.50,000/- in:-
Deepstambh Foundation, Delhi
Bank Name : ICICI Bank
Account Name : Deepstambh Foundation Delhi
Account Number : 697401700986
Account Type : Savings
IFSC Code : ICIC0006974
MICR Code : 425229003
b) The Petitioner shall deposit the remaining amount of
Rs.50000/- in:-
Central Police Welfare Fund
Account No: 914010029005759
Bank : Axis Bank Limited
Branch : Worli, Mumbai (M.H.), Mumbai - 400 025
IFSC Code: UTIB0000060
20. The Writ Petition 375 of 2026 is allowed in above terms.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
9
Checking your session…