Bombay High Court
Amiyakumar Gaurishanker Jha vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 April, 2017
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari
1 of 6 APL.4846.2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4846 OF 2014
Amiyakumar Gaurishankar Jha,
R/o.Bhyander (East), Dist.Thane Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Inspector Incharge,
Amboli Police Station, Mumbai.
2. Vachaspati A. Mishra,
R/o.Andheri (West), Mumbai. Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.2362 OF 2016
Pitabash Prasad Dash,
R/o.Andheri (East), Chakala, Mumbai Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Inspector Incharge,
Amboli Police Station, Mumbai.
2. Vachaspati A. Mishra,
R/o.Andheri (West), Mumbai. Respondents
Mr.Mukesh K. Mishra, Advocate for Petitioners, in both petitions.
Smt.M.H.Mhatre and Dr.F.R.Shaikh, Assistant Public Prosecutors, for
State, in both petitions respectively.
Mr.Anand A. Pande i/by Mr.Ashok Pande, Advocate, for Respondent
no.2 in both petitions.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 7th April 2017
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 27th April 2017
2 of 6 APL.4846.2014
JUDGMENT - (Per - Prakash D. Naik, J.) :-
1. The Petitioners in both the petitions have preferred these
petitions by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India as well as by invoking inherent powers of
this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (`Cr.P.C.'). Both the Petitioners were arrayed as accused in the
first information report (`FIR') registered at the instance of
Respondent no.2 with Amboli Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai vide
CR No.188 of 2014. The said FIR was registered on 1st June 2014
for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The first informant has alleged in the complaint that he was
acquainted with accused no.1 P.P.Dash (Petitionelr in Criminal Writ
Petition No.2362 of 2016). Accused no.1 used to provide the work
of financial arrangement to Respondent no.2. After some time the
accused no.1 left his job and started working with Respondent no.2.
It is the case of the complainant-Respondent no.2 that accused no.1,
the complainant and the wife of complainant had jointly opened two
companies viz. Golden Bricks Corporate Advisors Private Limited and
Golden Bricks Infrastructure Private Limited. These two companies
were carrying out work of financial consultant only. M/s.Shah Group
Builders had approached the said companies for arrangement of
financial assistance to the tune of Rs.285 crores. The complainant
and accused no.1 had discussions with M/s.Shah Group Builders on
several occasions for the purposes of providing financial assistance to
them. The said Shah Group Builders had agreed to give commission
3 of 6 APL.4846.2014
in lieu of arrangement of finance to them. At that point of time,
accused no.1 represented the complainant that he is acquainted with
one person namely A.K.Jha (accused no.2) (Petitioner in Criminal
Writ Petition No.4846 of 2014), who is running a company named as
Regulus Consultants and Advisor Pvt.Ltd. He further stated that the
accused no.2 would make an arrangement to help them in providing
the financial assistance to M/s.Shah Group Builders. The accused
no.2 assured that he will certainly make an arrangement to provide
finance to the complainant and the accused no.1 to accomplish the
deal with M/s.Shah Group Builders. However, the accused no.2
demanded commission in advance for providing the said financial
assistance. He guaranteed that he will provide the loan amount to
the tune of Rs.115 crores. He, therefore, demanded commission in
advance to the tune of Rs.1.50 crores. The accused no.1 had also
represented to the complainant that the accused no.2 will definitely
provide the said financial assistance and he guarantees that he
would fullfill the promise. Believing the said representations of
accused nos.1 and 2, the complainant parted a sum of Rs.1.30 crores
to accused no.2. However, the finance was not provided and when
the complainant tried to contact accused no.2, his phone was found
to be switched off. Later on it was found that the accused no.2 was
arrested in some other case. It was also learnt that accused nos.1
and 2 had shared the amount which was parted by the complainant.
It is, therefore, the case of the complainant that accused nos.1 and 2
had connived with each other to cheat the complainant. Hence, an
FIR was registered with Amboli Police Station for the offences as
stated above.
4 of 6 APL.4846.2014
3. Both the accused preferred applications for anticipatory bail
before this Court viz. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.1040 of 2015
and 1702 of 2015. During the course of hearing of the said
applications, it was submitted before the Court that the accused are
settling the dispute by making payment to the complainant. The
complainant filed an affidavit during the course of hearing of the
said anticipatory bail applications. In the affidavit, it was stated that
as per the mutual agreement between the said Applicants and the
complainant, the Applicants-accused have agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.65 lakhs out of total due amount of Rs.1.30 crores. It was further
stated that the complainant has received an amount of Rs.65 lakhs
and he has no objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused
persons. A copy of the said affidavit has been annexed to the
Criminal Writ Petition No.2362 of 2016. In view of the settlement
between both the parties, the applications for anticipatory bail
preferred by both the accused, were allowed by order dated 18th
February 2016.
4. Criminal Writ Petition No.4846 of 2014 was preferred by
accused no.2 on merits. In view of the settlement, an affidavit was
submitted by the complainant in the said petition. However,
Criminal Writ Petition No.2362 of 2016, which was preferred by
accused no.1, contained averments that the parties have amicably
settled the dispute and the complainant has no objection for
quashing the impugned FIR. A copy of the affidavit submitted by the
complainant in Criminal Writ Petition No.4846 of 2014 is also
annexed to Criminal Writ Petition No.2362 of 2016. In the said
affidavit submitted by the complainant, it was stated that during
5 of 6 APL.4846.2014
pendency of the anticipatory bail applications preferred by both the
accused, mutual understanding is arrived at between them and out
of Rs.1.30 crores, it was agreed that the accused will pay an amount
of Rs.65 lakhs to the complainant by way of full and final settlement
of the entire dues. In view of the said settlement it was stated that
the accused have paid a sum of Rs.65 lakhs to the complainant
during pendency of applications for anticipatory bail. The payment
details were also annexed to the said affidavit. It was further
submitted in the affidavit that in view of payment of Rs.65 lakhs, he
has no objection for quashing the said FIR.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in both these
petitions as well as learned advocate representing the complainant in
both these petitions, have stated that there is amicable settlement
between both parties and the complainant has no objection for
quashing the FIR which is impugned in these petitions. It was
submitted that as per mutual agreement between both the parties,
the payment, as agreed upon, has been paid to the complainant and,
therefore, there is redressal of grievance of the Respondent no.2.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
Advocates representing the Petitioners-accused and Second
Respondent-complainant. We have perused the contents of both the
petitions as well as documents annexed to the petitions. We have
also gone through the affidavit submitted by the complainant stating
that he has received the payment and he has no objection for
quashing the impugned FIR. We have also noted that this is a
dispute which is of private in nature and public at large has no nexus
6 of 6 APL.4846.2014
with it. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
another1, the Apex Court has observed that in the event of
settlement between parties in respect to the disputes of private or
personal in nature, the High Court in exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may quash the criminal proceedings.
7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and taking into
consideration that there is genuine settlement between the parties,
we are inclined to allow these writ petitions and quash the impugned
FIR registered at the instance of Respondent no.2.
8. Hence, we pass following order :
ORDER
(a) Criminal Writ Petition No.4846 of 2014 and Criminal Writ
Petition No.2362 of 2016 are allowed;
(b) The FIR registered with Amboli Police Station, Amboli,
Mumbai vide CR No.188 of 2014 on 1st June 2014 for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code, is quashed and set aside;
(c) No order as to costs.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (SC.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
MST
1 (2012)10-SCC-303
