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. ..... CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. 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 SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Digitally signed by SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2026.08.24 19:02:15 +0530 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 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 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 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 4th 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 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 4th 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