Lalit Suresh Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 521 Bom

                                                                                         7. cri apl 22-18.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2018


            Lalit Suresh Sharma                                               .. Applicant

                                 Versus
            State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                       .. Respondents

                                                     ...................
            Appearances
            Ms. Anubha Rastogi a/w
            Mr. Rajesh Anand &
            Mr. Gaurav Adlakha     Advocate for the Applicant
            Mr. Alok Singh a/w
            Mr. Dilip H. Shukla    Advocate for Respondent No. 2& 3
            Mrs. G.P. Mulekar      APP for the State
                                                      ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                                              M.S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : JANUARY 16, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Through this application, the applicant is mainly

seeking quashing of FIR MECR No. 7/2008 of Ghatkopar

Police Station. The said case is under Sections 465, 467,

468, 471, 420 r/w 120B or / in the alternative S. 34 of IPC.

The said case is now pending before the 49th M.M. Court,

Vikhroli, Mumbai.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                        1 of 5





                                                               7. cri apl 22-18.doc

2. The case of Respondent No. 2 - original complainant is

that he and his wife (respondent No. 3) had handed over Rs.

2 Crores to the applicant to be invested in shares, however,

the applicant did not do so and misappropriated the same.

3. Heard learned counsels for the applicant, respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 and learned APP for the State. The applicant is

present before the Court. So also, respondent Nos. 2 and 3

are present before the Court. Both the respondents have

filed affidavits in which it is stated that they have entered

into settlement with the applicant and all the disputes and

differences between themselves have been amicable settled.

The affidavits are taken on record and marked "X" & "X1"

for identification. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 confirms receipt

of the amounts as stated in paragraph 2 of their affidavit.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have further stated in their

affidavits that in view of the settlement, they have no

objection to the FIR MECR and the proceedings relating

thereto being quashed. They have also stated that they

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

7. cri apl 22-18.doc

have no objection for releasing of immovable properties and

de-freezing of bank accounts.

4. Learned counsel for both the sides have relied on the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr.1 wherein it is observed that the

criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly

civil flavours stand on different footing for the purposes of

quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial,

financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like

transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating

to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is

basically private or personal in nature and the parties have

resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High

Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because

of the compromise between the offender and victim, the

possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation

of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and

prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

7. cri apl 22-18.doc

not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete

settlement and compromise with the victim. The present

case falls within four corners of the decision in the case of

Gian Singh (supra).

5. Looking to the fact that the matter has been amicably

settled between the parties and looking to the fact that the

complainant does not wish to proceed with the matter any

further, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be

achieved by continuing with the prosecution in the said case.

In this view of the matter, FIR MECR bearing No. 7 of 2008 of

Ghatkopar Police Station and the proceedings relating

thereto are quashed.

6. The passport of the applicant which has been seized by

the investigating agency be released. The movable and

immovable properties of the applicant which have been

seized / attached be released and the accounts of the

applicant which have been freezed be de-freezed.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                      4 of 5





                                                               7. cri apl 22-18.doc

7. The application is allowed in the above terms.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J ]                    [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                         5 of 5