Bombay High Court
Sanjay Satish Kumar Sinha And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 August, 2017
Bench: R.M. Savant
Rane * 1/5 * WP-3093-2017 (SR.5)
Wednesday, 16.8.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3093 OF 2017
Sanjay Satish Kumar Sinha and Ors. ....Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and anr. ....Respondents
*****
Mr. Subhash Jha i/by. Law Global Associates, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
the State, respondent no.1.
Mr. Himanshu Luthra, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr. Shivaji Prabhakar Kalme, respondent no.2 present in
person.
CORAM :- R.M. SAVANT &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE :- 16TH AUGUST, 2017.
P.C. :-
1. The above writ petition has been filed for
quashing of the FIR being No. 180 of 2016 registered with
Rane * 2/5 * WP-3093-2017 (SR.5)
Wednesday, 16.8.2017
Chandan Nagar Police Station, Pune which is being
investigated by the E.O.W. Pune for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with
Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The said FIR was arising
out of the business transaction between the petitioner and
the first informant i.e. respondent no.3 herein. The
petitioner is engaged in the business of providing
logistical services for which it takes vehicles on hire.
Respondent no.3 is the supplier of the vehicles to the
petitioner. The dispute has arisen out of the allegation of
respondent no.2 in respect of the alleged non-payment by
the petitioner. The parties have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Deed of
Compromise dated 4th February, 2017. Clauses-4(a), 4(b)
and 4(g) are relevant and the same are reproduced for
the sake of ready reference herein under :-
"4a. That the second party has paid a
consideration of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Only) through the demand draft
no.042365 of bank drawn on HDFC dated
Rane * 3/5 * WP-3093-2017 (SR.5)
Wednesday, 16.8.2017
06.02.2016 in favour of Shivaji Kalme,
proprietor of Fast Track Travel Solutions on
07.02.2017 (copy of the DD enclosed), and has
issued the Post Date Cheque No.132322 dated
01.08.2017 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank for
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only),
10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only), as surety
basis, and this cheque is a condition precedent.
b. The First Party undertakes to facilitate the
pending receivable to be remitted into Leeway
Logistic Limited Account from the Daimler
(Mercedes Benz Research and Development
India Private Limited-SEZ Unit). The First Party
undertakes collect the cheque from Daimler and,
thereafter, the same shall be furnished to
Leeway Logistic Limited. After receiving the
receivables from Daimler into the second party's
account and as and when the payment is
received, the second party, forthwith
undertakes to make payment of Rs.6,00,000/-
will return the Post Date Cheque of
Rs.10,00,000/- and the same shall be replaced
by a fresh PDC dated 01.08.2016, of the
remaining settlement amount.
Rane * 4/5 * WP-3093-2017 (SR.5)
Wednesday, 16.8.2017
g. The second party here to undertake to
reimburse a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Only) to the first party in the event of
refusal/Rejection/denial of the payment by the
Daimler undertakes to make payment within
two weeks from such date of rejection. In case of
refusal by Daimler, the Second Party undertakes
to pay the full settlement amount on or before
01.08.2017. In the event of nonpayment of the
settlement amount after the prescribed time
outlined in this MOU, the First Party reserves
the right to press all the cases pending before
any or all the authorities along with the 138
cases for the cheques prescribed by Leeway
Logistic Limited."
2. The said MOU therefore discloses, the amicable
settlement arrived at between the petitioner and
respondent no.2 i.e. the First informant. Respondent
no.2, Shivaji Prabhakar Kalme is personally present in
the Court. He is identifed by the Learned Counsel
appearing for respondent no.2, as also, he is identified by
his Aadhar Card bearing No. 9706 4086 0806. When put
Rane * 5/5 * WP-3093-2017 (SR.5)
Wednesday, 16.8.2017
in the box and queried, he states that the contents of the
MOU have been explained to him by his Learned Counsel
and that the terms and conditions of the said MOU are
acceptable to him. He identifies the signature on the MOU
as his. In the light of the above and in view of the
judgments of the Apex Court in Gian Singh V/s. State
of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC page 303
and in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC page 466. No
useful purpose would be served if the proceedings are
kept pending, the writ petition is accordingly allowed and
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). However, it
is clarified that the instant settlement would not come in
the way of the other parties who have any claim against
the petitioner.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (R.M. SAVANT, J)
