PIYUSH JASWANTRAI MEHTA AND ANR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
APL/1539/2026 · 2026-09-02
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5687 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5687 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
bdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1539 OF 2026 Piyush Jaswantrai Mehta & Anr. ...Applicants. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Jehangir Khajotia a/w Mr. Prashant Kale, Mr. Bhushan Gawale, Advocates for the Applicants. Mr. Dev Mistry i/b YNA Legal LLP, Advocates for Respondent No.2. Mr. Rajesh Gangumal Satargani, Respondent No.2, present. The learned APP for Respondent No.1-State is absent. Mr. Prashant Patil, PI (Crime), Mr. Deepak Hol, Pairavi Officer, Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station, present.
CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The present Application impugns C.C. No.185/PW of 2022 arising out of FIR No.53 of 2021 dated 31st March, 2021 registered with Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 420, 408, 467, 468, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 43, 66 and 72 of the Information and Technology Act. 1/3 3 APL-1539-2026.doc BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.09.02 18:58:26 +0530
2. The learned counsel for the Applicants and Respondent No.2 jointly submit that all disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably settled. They jointly rely upon the Consent Terms dated 16th May, 2026 filed by the parties before the City Civil Court at Bombay in Short Cause Civil Suit No.5989 of 2024. In view of these Consent Terms, Respondent No.2 has withdrawn all allegations made against the Petitioners.
3. Mr. Mistry, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 tenders consent affidavit dated 2nd September, 2026, recording no objection of Respondent No.2 if the prayers in the Application are allowed. The said consent affidavit is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for the purpose of identification.
4. It is well settled law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466 that when dispute is amicably settled and no element of public policy is involved, no purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings pending. 2/3 3 APL-1539-2026.doc
5. In view of the above, Application is allowed and C.C. No.185/PW of 2022 arising out of FIR No.53 of 2021 registered with Dr. D.B. Marg Police, Station, Mumbai along with charge-sheet filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai and all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] 3/3 3 APL-1539-2026.doc