Bombay High Court
Rohitashva Chandi Das ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 November, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2384 OF 2017
1] Rajan s/o Har Prasad Nanda
Age 75 Years, Occu.Chairman,
M/s. Escorts Limited,
R/o House No.2, Friends Colony,
West, New Delhi.
2] Nikhil s/o Rajan Nanda
Age 43 Years, Occu.Managing
Director, M/s. Escorts Limited
R/o H.No.12, Jorbagh Lodi Road
New Delhi 110003
Through their Specific Power of
Attorney Holder Rohitashva Chandi
das Chakraborty,
Age 39 Years, Occu-Advocate
R/o. Mayur Vihar - Phase 2
New Delhi - 91. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Jinsi Police Station,
Aurangabad, Taluka and
District Aurangabad.
(Copy to be served on P.P.
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad)
2] Jubair Amannullah Motiwala
age 39 Years, Occu.Business
R/o Memon Colony,
Opp.Office of Indian Airlines,
Jalna Road,Jinsi, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:55:52 :::
2
------
Mr.Amol S.Sawant, Advocate for applicants
Mrs.D.S.Jape, APP for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Satej S.Jadhav,Adv. for respondent No.2.
-----
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 23/11/ 2017.
PRONOUNCED ON :27/11/2017.
JUDGMENT ( PER MANGESH S. PATIL,J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2] This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, for
quashing FIR bearing Crime No.12/2016 registered with Jinsi
Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of
IPC.
3] The respondent no.2 has lodged the FIR with the
allegations that the applicants are the Chairman and Managing
Director of M/s Escorts Limited. He was appointed as the sole
Distributor/Dealer of the company's vehicles. By way of
security, he had handed over few blank cheques to the
company, however, in breach of the dealership agreement,
dishonestly and with a view to cause wrongful loss to him, the
company started selling tractors to various dealers directly.
Hence he alleged that they have cheated him by forging
documents and have used those.
4] The present application has been filed for quashing the
FIR on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties viz. the applicants on the one hand and the
respondent no.2 on the other hand. The applicants have also
produced the 'Terms of Compromise' deed which is marked as
Exh."X" for the purpose of reference.
5] We have heard learned advocates for both sides including
the learned APP and we have also perused the papers and the
terms of compromise.
6] Apparently the genesis of the dispute is nothing but a
commercial transaction entered into between the applicants and
the respondent no.2 whereby he was appointed as the exclusive
dealer of the vehicles being manufactured by M/s Escorts
Limited. Since as per the terms of compromise apparently the
parties have agreed to settle the dispute and when it is
apparently arisen out of a commercial transaction, applying
principles laid down in the case of Gian Singh V/s State of
Punjab and another; 2012(4) Bom.CR (Cri) 428, we find no
cogent reason to discard the compromise and relegate the
parties to face the criminal proceeding.
7] Hence the application is allowed. The impugned FIR is
quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
( MANGESH S. PATIL,J.) (S.S.SHINDE ,J.)
umg/
