Bombay High Court

BALDEV SINGH VIJANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 31 August 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The petition for recall is dismissed, and the earlier order quashing the FIR remains in force.

Summary

The petitioner sought recall of a 2 April 2024 order that quashed an FIR dated 6 December 2023, which alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code relating to a property transaction. The FIR was filed by the complainant after a failed sale of a bungalow, and the parties later reached an amicable settlement in which the complainant received Rs. 3 crores and consented to the FIR’s quashal. The petitioner argued that the earlier order ignored his civil rights concerning the property sale and should be set aside. The court held that the petition did not demonstrate any merit to disturb the earlier quashal order and that civil rights issues were not within the scope of the criminal proceeding. Consequently, the petition for recall was dismissed, leaving the original order quashing the FIR intact.

Issues considered

Whether the order quashing the FIR can be recalled on the ground that civil rights of the petitioner were not adjudicated
Whether the settlement and consent of the complainant justify maintaining the quashal of the FIR

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 420, 465, 467, 468

Subjects

quash FIR
civil rights
property dispute
settlement
recall of order
IPC offences
criminal procedure

Judgment

16-wp-3896-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3896 OF 2026

Baldev Singh Vijan …Petitioner

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents

Mr. Yashpal Thakur, a/w Adv. M. G. Shukla, Advocate for the
Petitoner.
Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 31.08.2026.

P.C. :

1. This petition is filed seeking recall of the order passed

by this Court dated 02.04.2024 in Writ Petition (ST) No. 5450 of

2024, which reads thus :

1. Not on board. Taken on board.

2. The petitioners are challenging the First
Information Report (FIR) dated 6.12.2023
registered with Chunabatti Police Station, Mumbai
vide C.R. No. 523 of 2023 for the offences under
Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered at the
instance of respondent No.2.

Pramod S.Lakare
1/5
16-wp-3896-2026.doc

3. The parties have arrived at amicable
settlement. The original complainant has been
compensated appropriately.

4. From the tenor of FIR, it appears that there
was transaction of sale of property between the
complainant and the accused. Since the entire
consideration was not paid to the complainant, the
FIR was registered. It is alleged that Bungalow at
Chembur was gifted to complainant by her
parents. She had entered into transaction of sale
with M/s.Radhakrishna Live Space in February
2023 by executing agreement and accepted
Rs.41,50,000/- as token. Transaction could not be
completed. She was in search of another
purchaser. Petitioner No.1 approached her. Deal
was fixed. Consideration was decided. Fake D.D.
was given to the complainant. She was deceived.

5. Parties have settled dispute. Consent Terms
are executed.

6. The Consent Terms indicate that it is agreed
to pay amount of Rs.3 crores to the complainant.
The complainant is present in the Court. She is
represented by Advocate. She has received
amount of Rs.3 crores in view of settlement
between the parties. She has filed the affidavit
giving consent to quashing the FIR.

Pramod S.Lakare
2/5
16-wp-3896-2026.doc

7. Apparently, the dispute between the
complainant and the petitioners relates to the
transaction of property. The matter has been
amicably settled by the parties. In view of Consent
Term and the affidavit filed by the respondent
No.2/complainant, the impugned proceedings can
be quashed.
OR DER
a] Writ Petition is allowed.

b] The impugned FIR dated 06.12.2023
registered with Chunabatti Police Station,
Mumbai vide FIR No.523 of 2023 is
quashed and set aside, subject to
payment of costs.

c] The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 shall pay
the costs of Rs.25,000/- each to
Advocates’ Association of Western India
Generation Next within a period of three
weeks from today and submit the receipt
of the same in the Registry of this Court.
The details of the bank account for
payment of costs are as under:

Account Name : Advocates’ Association of
Western India Generation Next
Account Number : 000110110007807
Bank Name : Bank of India

Pramod S.Lakare
3/5
16-wp-3896-2026.doc

Branch Name : Mumbai Main
IFSC Code : BKID0000001

d] The articles belonging to the
respondent No.2/ complainant, if any,
which are lying in the premises now being
sold to the petitioners be returned to the
complainant in presence of police official
of concerned police station.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

there is an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner executed

by the father of the first informant in respect of the very same

Bungalow referred to in the FIR. It is submitted that suppressing

the said fact consent terms were filed before this Court. It is

submitted that the order dated 02.04.2024 needs to be recalled as

it is prejudicially affecting the rights of the petitioner.

4. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is also the

victim of the crime in question. By the order dated 02.04.2024,

this Court has not decided the civil rights of the parties. In that

Pramod S.Lakare
4/5
16-wp-3896-2026.doc

view of the matter, no case is made out to recall the order dated

02.04.2026.

5. The petition is dismissed.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Pramod S.Lakare
5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…