Asha Nandakumar Chaure v. The State of Maharashtra, Through Powai Police Station, Mumbai
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Dec 2025
- Bench
- GAUTAM A ANKHAD
Outcome
Quashed
all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 427, 448, 452, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab” (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the high court may exercise its inherent powers where disputes are private in nature to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of law.…
Judgment
Mr. Rishikesh Mohite with Mr. Mehta, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, In-Charge Public Prosecutor with Mr. S.V. Gavand, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, i/by Mr. Kunal Ambulkar, Advocates for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. DATE : 17TH DECEMBER 2025. PER, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking following prayers:
(A). This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings being C.C. No.119/PW/2016 pending on the file of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, 66 th Court, Andheri, Mumbai arising out of F.I.R. bearing No.249 of 2015 registered with Powai Police Station for offences punishable under sections 452, 448, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. in the interest of justice.
The petitioners are the accused in the First Information Report bearing No.249 of 2015. The respondent no.2 works as a security personnel for HGP Community Private Limited (formerly known as M/s. Lake View Developers). By a Board Resolution Dixit dated 30th September 2025, the respondent no.2 is authorised to represent HGP Community Private Limited in the present proceedings. The FIR was lodged at the instance of the respondent no.2 for offences punishable under sections 452, 448, 427, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Powai Police Station. Subsequently, a charge-sheet bearing C.C. No.119/PW/2016 has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Andheri, Mumbai.
The parties now have settled their disputes amicably. Mr. Mundargi, the learned advocate for the respondent no.2, has tendered an affidavit dated 9th December 2025 across the Bar which records that the respondent no.2 no longer has any other grievance against the petitioner and has no objection to quashing of the FIR. Respondent no.2 is present in Court and identified by his counsel. Respondent no.2 has affixed his signature on plain piece of paper and recorded his appearance in his own handwriting. The handwritten appearance and copy of his Aadhaar card shall now form part of the record.
Operative part
In “Gian Singh v. State of Punjab” (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the high court may exercise its inherent powers where disputes are private in nature to serve ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of law. In light of settlement arrived at by the parties, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings. Writ Petition No.6117 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) and the FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside. SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT SNEHA ABHAY DIXIT [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ] Dixit
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: all consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 427, 448, 452, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Dec 2025. The bench was GAUTAM A ANKHAD.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.