Bombay High Court
Srei Equipment Finance Limited ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 January, 2018
13. cri wp 459-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2016
Srei Equipment Finance Ltd & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by
PKA Advocates Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A.H. Fatangare Advocate for Respondent No. 2
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
M.S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 22, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter
is heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of MECR No. 6 of
2015 registered with Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai. The
said case is under Sections 405, 409, 415, 418, 420 r/w 120
& 34 of IPC. The said case is pending before the learned
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
13. cri wp 459-16.doc
Metropolitan Magistrate, 67th Court, Borivali, Mumbai.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner - accused,
learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - original complainant
and learned APP for the State.
4. Respondent No. 2 - complainant is present before us.
He has stated that the dispute is amicably settled between
him and the accused and in view of the settlement, he does
not wish to proceed any further against the accused. He has
also tendered the affidavit and the consent terms between
him and the petitioners. The said affidavit and the consent
terms are taken on record and marked "X" and "X1" for
identification.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1.
In paragraph 15 of the said decision in clause (viii), it is
1 (2017) 9 SCC 614 : AIR 2017 SC 4843
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
13. cri wp 459-16.doc
observed that Criminal cases involving offences which arise
from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute. It is further observed that in such a
case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in
view of the compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a
criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.
We are of the opinion that the present case clearly falls
within these parameters.
6. 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 pursue the case, 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, MECR No. 6 of 2015 registered with Diondoshi Police
Station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto are
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
13. cri wp 459-16.doc
quashed.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ M.S. KARNIK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
