WP 364 OF 2026 9th Setpember 2026 vinita IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 364 OF 2026 FR. ARLINO D’MELLO & ANR. … Petitioners. VERSUS STATE OF GOA & ORS. … Respondents. Mr Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with Mr Vledson Braganza, Mr Sagar Rivankar, Mr Nilesh Kumbhar, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms Swati Kamat Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor with Ms Shibani Singh, Advocate holding for Mr N. Vaze, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Ms Laxmi Dessai and Ms Saicha Dessai, Advocates for the Respondent No.3. Mr Nitin N. Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Mr Kabir Sabnis and Mr Tarun Rebello, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2.1 to 2.3. CORAM:- AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR,J. Reserved on :- 7th September 2026 Pronounced on:- 9th September 2026. ORDER 1. The Petitioners are senior citizens and senior priests of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman. By the present petition, the Petitioners seek the quashing of FIR No. 23/2010 by consent of the Respondent Nos. 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 3. Respondent Nos. 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) are the legal heirs of the deceased first informant (original Respondent No. 2). The 3rd Respondent is the developer of the land in dispute. The FIR was registered against the Petitioners on 18.01.2010 at Panaji Police Station for offences under Sections 468, 471, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. WP 364 OF 2026 9th Setpember 2026 2. The dispute between the parties arises from a long-standing controversy concerning property bearing Chalta No. 44A of P.T. Sheet No. 162 at Caranzalem, Panaji, and alleged tenancy rights. The dispute has been the subject matter of several revenue, civil and writ proceedings. The original complainant and his family had pursued remedies before the Inspector of Surveys and Land Records, this Hon’ble Court and the Civil Court, by way of Writ Petition No. 341/2010 and Regular Civil Suit No. 53/2011/D, wherein the reliefs sought by them came to be rejected/dismissed. 3. After registering the FIR on 18.01.2010, investigation was conducted and an “A” Summary Report was filed by the prosecution. However, upon protest, further investigation was directed. Despite the passage of more than fifteen years, no charge-sheet has been filed against the Petitioners. 4. In the meantime, the underlying civil/property dispute has been amicably and finally settled. The legal heirs of the original complainant have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Affidavit-cum- Undertaking dated 17.06.2026 with Respondent No. 3, recording that all claims and disputes, including the alleged tenancy rights dispute, stand fully, finally and irrevocably settled. They have further confirmed that no claims or disputes survive and that they do not wish to pursue or continue the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR No. 23/2010. 5. I have perused the Settlement Agreement and Affidavit-cum- Undertaking dated 17.06.2026. Mr. Kantak, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3, and Mr. Sardessai, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, confirm the settlement WP 364 OF 2026 9th Setpember 2026 between the parties. 6. Therefore, in view of the settlement, I am satisfied that the substratum of the prosecution no longer survives, and the continuation of the FIR would amount to an unnecessary continuation of the criminal process in respect of a civil dispute which has been conclusively resolved between the concerned parties. In any case, since the registration of the FIR, no chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioner to date. The extraordinary delay, coupled with the absence of any final prosecutorial outcome, renders continuation of the criminal proceedings unjust and serves no useful purpose. Therefore, this is a fit case to put an end to the criminal proceedings by applying the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and recently in Anand Kumar alias Sanjay Lalwani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., [2026 SCC Online SC 1724]. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I am exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 and under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR No. 23/2010. 7. In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the Petition which reads as follows: “a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records and proceedings of FIR bearing No. 23 of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 registered u/s 468, 471, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Panaji Police Station, North Goa and to issue appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned FIR bearing No. 23 of 2010 dated 18.01.2010 registered u/s 468, 471, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Panaji Police Station, North Goa;” WP 364 OF 2026 9th Setpember 2026 8. However, because criminal proceedings were initiated, I am of the view that the parties should pay the costs. Accordingly, the Petitioners and the Respondent Nos. 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c), and 3 shall jointly pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) as and by way of costs to the Goa State Legal Services Authority within a period of two days from today. 9. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Goa State Legal Services Authority. 10. The relief granted in terms of prayer clause (a) shall become operative only after the payment of costs as above. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. 12. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on the production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. AMIT S. JAMASANDEKAR, J. Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK Designation: Private Secretary Date: 10/09/2026 11:10:06