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, 1st 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 4th 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 7th 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