Bombay High Court
Virendra Natwarlal Bhayani And ... vs Nilesh Natwarlal Bhayani And Anr on 3 August, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
-1- CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 318 OF 2021
[Arising out of C.C. No.141/SW/2018 pending before the learned Magistrate,
73rd Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai @ MECR No.10/2018, registered with Pant Nagar
Police Station, Mumbai]
1) Shri Nilesh Natwarlal Bhayani
Aged : 56 years, Occ : Business
2) Smt. Hetal Nilesh Bhayani
Aged : 44 years, Occ: House Wife
Both residing at Flat Nos.203-204,
Sagar Plaza Residency and Shopping Applicants
CHS Ltd., M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (W), ... (Org. Accused
Mumbai 400 086. Nos.1 and 2)
Versus
1) Shri Virendra Natwarlal Bhayani
Age : 59 years, Occ : Business, (Resp. No.1 is
R/at: 802, Gokul Building, Org.
60 feet Road, Ghatkopar (East), Complainant)
Mumbai-400077
2) The State of Maharashtra
(At instance of Pantnagar ... Respondents
Police Station, Mumbai.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 446 OF 2021
[Arising out of C.C.No.1401/2020 pending before the learned Magistrate,
Vikhroli, Mumbai @ MECR No.06/2018, registered
with Park Site Police Station, Mumbai.]
1) Shri Nilesh Natwarlal Bhayani
Aged : 56 years, Occ : Business
2) Smt. Hetal Nilesh Bhayani
Aged : 44 years, Occ: House Wife
Both residing at Flat Nos.203-204,
Sagar Plaza Residency and Shopping Applicants
CHS Ltd., M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (W), ... (Org. Accused
Mumbai 400 086. Nos.1 and 2)
Shraddha Talekar, PS 1/21
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 18:45:27 :::
-2- CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
Versus
1) Shri Virendra Natwarlal Bhayani
Age : 59 years, Occ : Business, (Resp. No.1 is
R/at: 802, Gokul Building, Org.
60 feet Road, Ghatkopar (East), Complainant)
Mumbai-400077
2) The State of Maharashtra
(At instance of Park Site ... Respondents
Police Station, Mumbai.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 448 OF 2021
[Arising out of C.C. No.140/SW/2018 pending before the learned
Magistrate, 73rd Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai @ MECR No.09/2018,
registered with Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai ]
1) Shri Nilesh Natwarlal Bhayani
Aged : 56 years, Occ : Business
2) Smt. Hetal Nilesh Bhayani
Aged : 44 years, Occ: House Wife
Both residing at Flat Nos.203-204,
Sagar Plaza Residency and Shopping Applicants
CHS Ltd., M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (W), ... (Org. Accused
Mumbai 400 086. Nos.1 and 2)
Versus
1) Shri Virendra Natwarlal Bhayani
Age : 59 years, Occ : Business, (Resp. No.1 is
R/at: 802, Gokul Building, Org.
60 feet Road, Ghatkopar (East), Complainant)
Mumbai-400077
2) The State of Maharashtra
(At instance of Pantnagar ... Respondents
Police Station, Mumbai.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 7737 OF 2021
[Arising out of F.I.R. No.125 of 2018 registered with Pant
Nagar Police Station, Mumbai ]
1) Virendra Natwarlal Bhayani
Age : 59 years, Occ : Business,
R/at: 802, Gokul Building,
Shraddha Talekar, PS 2/21
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 18:45:27 :::
-3- CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
60 feet Road, Ghatkopar (East),
Mumbai-400077.
2) Saloni Virendra Bhayani,
Age 41 years, Occupation: Housewife, .. Applicants
residing at 802, Gokul Building, (Original
60 Feet Road, Ghatkopar (East), Accused
Mumbai-400077. Nos.1 and 2)
Versus
1) Nilesh Natwarlal Bhayani
Aged : 56 years, Occ : Business
residing at Flat Nos.203/204,
Sagar Plaza Building,
M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai 400 086.
2) The State of Maharashtra
(At instance of Pant Nagar ... Respondents
Police Station, Mumbai.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 7744 OF 2021
[Arising out of F.I.R. No.89 of 2017, registered with
M.R.A. Police Station, Mumbai]
1) Virendra Natwarlal Bhayani
Age : 59 years, Occ : Business, .. Applicant
R/at: 802, Gokul Building, (Original
60 feet Road, Ghatkopar (East), Accused No.
Mumbai-400077. 2)
Versus
1) Nilesh Natwarlal Bhayani
Aged : 56 years, Occ : Business
residing at Flat Nos.203/204,
Sagar Plaza Building,
M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai 400 086.
2) The State of Maharashtra
(At instance of M.R.A. ... Respondents
Police Station, Mumbai.
Shraddha Talekar, PS 3/21
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 18:45:27 :::
-4- CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 7747 OF 2021
[Arising out of F.I.R. No. 343 of 2019 registered with
Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai]
1) Virendra Natwarlal Bhayani
Age : 59 years, Occ : Business,
R/at: 802, Gokul Building,
60 feet Road, Ghatkopar (East),
Mumbai-400077.
2) Saloni Virendra Bhayani,
Age 41 years, Occupation: Housewife, .. Applicants
residing at 802, Gokul Building, (Original
60 Feet Road, Ghatkopar (East), Accused
Mumbai-400077. Nos.1 and 2)
Versus
1) Nilesh Natwarlal Bhayani
Aged : 56 years, Occ : Business
residing at Flat Nos.203/204,
Sagar Plaza Building,
M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai 400 086.
2) The State of Maharashtra
(At instance of Ghatkopar ... Respondents
Police Station, Mumbai.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 7750 OF 2021
[Arising out of F.I.R. No.57 of 2019, registered with Ghatkopar Police
Station, Mumbai]
1) Virendra Natwarlal Bhayani
Age : 59 years, Occ : Business, .. Applicant
R/at: 802, Gokul Building, (Original
60 feet Road, Ghatkopar (East), Accused)
Mumbai-400077.
Versus
1) Nilesh Natwarlal Bhayani
Aged : 56 years, Occ : Business
residing at Flat Nos.203/204,
Shraddha Talekar, PS 4/21
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 18:45:27 :::
-5- CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
Sagar Plaza Building,
M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai 400 086.
2) The State of Maharashtra
(At instance of Ghatkopar ... Respondents
Police Station, Mumbai.
***
Mr.Gajendra K.Jadhav for applicant in APL Nos.318/2021,
446/2021, 448/2021 and for respondent No.1 in APL(St.) Nos.
7737/2021, 7744/2021, 7747/2021 & 7750/2021.
Mr.Jamshed Master i/b Ms. Natasha Bhot for applicant in APL(St.)
Nos.7737/2021, 7744/2021, 7747/2021 & 7750/2021 and for
respondent No.1 in APL Nos. 318/2021, 446/2021 and 448/2021.
Smt.A.S. Pai, PP a/w. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for respondent No.2-
State in all applications.
***
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
Date : 3rd August 2021.
JUDGMENT (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.) :
1. Criminal Application Nos.7737 of 2021, 7744 of 2021, 7747
of 2021 and 7750 of 2021, though not listed, with the consent of
the learned counsels for the parties, taken up for hearing.
2. Rule in all applications. Rule made returnable forthwith
and, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties,
heard fnally.
3. These applications are fled for quashing the prosecutions
which are the subject matter of respective applications in view of
the settlement arrived at between the applicant(s) and the
Shraddha Talekar, PS 5/21
-6- CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
respondent No.1-frst informant/complainant in the respective
reports/complaints.
4. Since the prosecutions have their genesis in the dispute
between Mr.Nilesh Natwarlal Bhayani-applicant No.1, in Criminal
Application Nos. 318 of 2021, 446 of 2021 and 448 of 2021 and his
brother Mr.Virendra Natwarlal Bhayani-applicant/applicant No.1
in Criminal Application (Stamp) Nos.7737 of 2021, 7744 of 2021,
7747 of 2021 and 7750 of 2021 and the said dispute has been
reported to be settled in accordance with the Consent Terms dated
5th November 2020 recorded in Arbitration Petition (OS) (L.)
No.5159 of 2020 and connected petitions, by order dated 6 th
November 2020, passed in the said petitions, all these
applications are taken up for disposal together.
5. The learned counsels for the applicant(s) and respondent
No.1, in the respective applications, submit that in accordance
with the settlement arrived at between Mr.Nilesh and Mr.Virendra,
the respondent No.1 in each of the applications has fled
affdavits. The respondent No.1 in the respective applications is
identifed by the concerned Advocate.
6. From the perusal of the F.I.Rs., in these applications, it
appears that Mr. Natwarlal Bhayani, father of Mr.Nilesh and Mr.
Shraddha Talekar, PS 6/21
-7- CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
Virendra, passed away in the year 2014. After the demise of late
Natwarlal, disputes arose between Mr.Nilesh and Mr.Virendra over
the control of the M/s. Mahavir Gas Service and other properties
left behind by the late Natwarlal. As the dispute escalated, various
proceedings, including prosecutions came to be instituted against
each other. Mr.Nilesh has also fled an Arbitration Petition (OS) (L.)
No. 5159 of 2020 against Shri Virendra.
Prosecutions against Shri Nilesh Bhayani :
7. In Criminal Application No.318 of 202, Mr.Virendra-
respondent No.1 lodged a complaint leading to registration of
MECR No.10/2018 with Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai
against Nilesh and his wife Hetal with the allegation that during
the period July-2014 to May-2018, the accused Nilesh and his wife
Hetal, in furtherance of their common intention, forged the Will of
Mr. Natwarlal, father of Nilesh and Virendra and, on the strength
thereof, Flat Nos.203 and 204 at Sagar Plaza building, M.G. Road,
Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai were got transferred in the name of
Nilesh. It was also alleged that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- deposited
Mr. Virendra, with the said society towards maintenance, was
misappropriated.
8. In Criminal Application No.446 of 2021, Mr. Virendra lodged
Shraddha Talekar, PS 7/21
-8- CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
complaint leading to registration of MECR No.06/2018, registered
with Park Site Police Station, Mumbai with the allegation that
applicant No.1-Nilesh and his wife Hetal, in furtherance of their
common intention, forged the 'no objection certifcatee and got
transferred fat Nos.1603 and 1607 at Wadhwa Residency Private
Limited, Bandra (West) and thereby committed cheating, forgery
and allied offences.
9. In Criminal Application No.448 of 2021, Mr. Virendra lodged
complaint leading to MECR No.09/2018 registered with Pant
Nagar Police Station, Mumbai with the allegation that Mr. Nilesh
operated the bank account of M/s.Mahavir Gas Service with State
Bank of India, Kandivali Branch, as if he was the sole proprietor
and also transferred money from the account of M/s.Mahavir Gas
Service to the account of his wife Hetal. Nilesh, thus, deceived
Virendra by depriving him of his share in M/s. Mahavir Gas
Service, a partnership frm.
Prosecutions against Shri Virendra Bhayani :
10. In Criminal Application (St.) No. 7737 of 2021, Mr.Nilesh-
respondent No.1 lodged FIR, bearing No. 125 of 2018 with Pant
Nagar Police Station, Mumbai against Virendra and his wife Saloni
with the allegation that the latter forged the Will of late father
Shraddha Talekar, PS 8/21
-9- CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
Natwarlal and fled an application for Probate on the strength of
fabricated Will, and thereby committed offences punishable under
sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 34 of the
Penal Code.
11. In Criminal Application (St.) No. 7744 of 2021, Mr. Nilesh-
respondent No.1 lodged FIR, bearing No.89 of 2018 with M.R.A.
Police Station, Mumbai against Virendra and one Bhausaheb
Borude with the allegation that the applicant-Virendra committed
offences of cheating as well as criminal breach of trust by opening
a current account in the name of M/s. Mahavir Gas Service, a
partnership frm, and dishonestly crediting a sum of
Rs.3,90,74,458/- to the said account from the account of
partnership frm.
12. In Criminal Application (St.) No. 7747 of 2021, Shri Nilesh-
respondent No.1 lodged FIR bearing No.343 of 2019 with
Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai against Virendra and his wife
Saloni with the allegation that the latter, in furtherance of their
common intention, forged the signature on the cheque bearing No.
916594 for Rs.80,00,000/- drawn on Account No.
002010100039675 with Bank of India and transferred the said
amount in their joint account with Bank of Baroda and, thereby
Shraddha Talekar, PS 9/21
- 10 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
committed offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471
read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
13. In Criminal Application (St.) No.7750 of 2021, Mr.Nilesh-
respondent No.1 lodged FIR bearing No.57 of 2019 registered with
Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai with the allegation that the
applicant-Virendra has forged the signatures of the frst informant
on the cheques and withdrew a sum of Rs.7,68,000/- from the
account of the frst informant with Bank of India, and thereby
committed offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and
471 of the Penal Code.
14. Evidently, in the wake of the dispute, it appears, multiple
proceedings were instituted. The complaints and cross complaints
of cheating, forgery and misappropriation of funds were lodged
against each other. All the proceedings and prosecutions arose out
of the dispute over succession to the family business and assets
left behind by late Natwarlal. Eventually, in Arbitration Petition
(OS) (L.) No.5159 of 2020, Mr.Nilesh and Mr.Virendra settled the
dispute in accordance with the Consent Terms. It appears that the
dispute was comprehensively and amicably resolved. It was, inter-
alia, agreed that the parties will fle necessary
application/petition/affdavit to withdraw all civil and criminal
Shraddha Talekar, PS 10/21
- 11 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
cases instituted against each other.
15. Paragraph Nos.7 to 11 of the Consent Terms read as under :-
"7 The parties agree, confrm, declare and undertake
that on signing of the consent terms, both Parties will,
by fling necessary application/petition/affdavit, with
mutual consent, and make applications to withdraw all
civil and criminal cases against each other including
applications to the Honeble High Court to quash the
proceedings arising out of FIR No.89 of 2017 registered
at MRA Marg Police Station and MECR No.9 of 2018
registered in Pant Nagar Police Station. Further, the
following proceedings will also be withdrawn by Parties,
who will take all necessary action/proceedings to
withdraw/quash the below mentioned proceedings :
a) Criminal Case No.781 of 2017 fled
before the High Court at Bombay pertaining
to FIR No. 89 of 2017 at MRA Marg Police
Station.
b) Case No.1067/2018, FIR No.125/2018
against Mrs. Saloni and Mr. Virendra
Bhayani registered at Pant Nagar Police
Station.
c) FIR No.4 of 2018 registered at Marine
Drive Police Station, Case No. 56/RA/2018
as regards rationing case, involving counter
allegations between the parties shall be
quashed by each other.
d) FIR No.57 of 2019 dated January 21,
2019 registered at Chirag Nagar Police
Station against Mr. Virendra Bhayani for an
amount of Rs.7,68,000/- (Rupees Seven
Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand only) along
with proceedings having number
124/BA/2019.
e) FIR No.343 of 2019 dated June 9, 2019
registered at Chirag Nagar Police Station,
against Saloni and Virendra Bhayani.
f) MECR No.06 of 2018 against Hetal and
Nilesh Bhayani fled by Virendra Bhayani.
g) MECR No.10 of 2018 against Hetal and
Shraddha Talekar, PS 11/21
- 12 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
Nilesh Bhayani fled by Virendra Bhayani.
h) MECR No.09 of 2018 against Hetal and
Nilesh Bhayani fled by Virendra Bhayani.
i) Application SW/81, SW/82 against
Hetal and Nilesh Bhayani fled by Virendra
Bhayani before Honeble Magistrate Court,
Vikhroli.
j) Application SW/64 against Saloni and
Virendra Bhayani fled by Nilesh Bhayani
before Honeble Magistrate Court, Vikhroli."
8 All applications fled and pending in Honeble
Magistrate Courts against each other shall be
withdrawn unconditionally including the application
pending in Honeble Magistrate Court, Vikhroli fled by
Virendra Bhayani against Nilesh Bhayani U/s 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 being SS.931/2019.
9 The complaint fled by Mr. Virendra Bhayani
against Mrs. Hetal Bhayani in Bar Council of
Maharashtra & Goa shall be withdrawn unconditionally.
10 By signing of these Consent Terms both the
parties agree that any complaint fled/registered against
each other in any police station/Honeble court on or
before the date of signing of these Consent Terms shall
be withdrawn unconditionally.
11 The Parties agree that, in light of the present
Consent Terms, the contentions raised by the Parties
before the Honeble Arbitral Tribunal of the learned sole
arbitrator Mr. Hormaz Daruwalla in connection with
Mahavir Gas Service, shop No.3, Eros Building, 42 M.K.
Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 alongwith Garage
No.9 & 10 are settled."
16. The Consent Terms were accepted by the Court in
Arbitration Petition (OS) (L.) No. 5159 of 2020 along with
connected matters, and the following order was passed :
"3 The parties have settled their disputes
comprehensively, not only in this Court but also in
arbitration before the learned sole Arbitrator. A soft copy
Shraddha Talekar, PS 12/21
- 13 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
of the Consent Terms is fled. This is taken on record.
4. The soft copy of the Consent Terms will be
uploaded as the second order in the matter. The
Petitionerse Advocate will apply to the Registry for a fling
token within one week to fle the hard copy of the
Consent Terms. The hard copy will be marked "X" for
identifcation. The Registry is to ensure that the hard
copy of the signed Consent Terms is permanently
retained on fle as part of the record and is not sent for
destruction in the ordinary course.
5. The undertakings, if any, in the Consent Terms are
accepted as undertakings to the Court.
6. As a consequence of this, the arbitral proceedings
stand terminated as there are no surviving disputes. All
previous orders, both by this Court and by the arbitral
Tribunal, therefore, necessarily stand vacated.
7. Parties are not required to fle separate Consent
Terms before the Arbitrator. A copy of this order along
with the Consent Terms be forwarded to the learned
Sole Arbitrator for completion of his records. In
particular, the order of 22nd September 2020 of the
learned Sole Arbitrator holding the Respondent in
contempt no longer survives.
8. There is a cheque deposited with the learned Sole
Arbitrator by the Respondent in the amount of Rs.
12,000/- as security. This is to be returned to the
Advocates for the Respondent and the learned Sole
Arbitrator is requested to do so at his earliest
convenience.
9. This order is in supersession of all previous orders
passed in this and all connected matters. 10.
Arbitration Petition (L) No. 5159 of 2020 is disposed of in
accordance with the Consent Terms. This order will also
dispose of, by consent, Arbitration Petition Nos. 1397 of
2019, 1401 of 2019, and 1408 of 2019. In consequence,
the Petitioneres Execution Application (L) No. 2289 of
2019 is, by consent, disposed of as infructuous."
17. The respective respondent No.1-frst informant have fled
affdavits in each of the applications.
18. In Criminal Application No.318 of 2021, the respondent
No.1-Mr. Virendra Bhayani has sworn the affdavit on 26 th April
2021. The respondent No.1-Mr. Virendra Bhayani is identifed by
Shraddha Talekar, PS 13/21
- 14 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
Advocate Ms. Natasha Bhot. The respondent No.1 submitted that
he has fled the affdavit voluntarily. He further submitted that in
accordance with the aforesaid Consent Terms, he has given
consent for quashment of the FIR bearing MECR No. 10/2018 and
the consequent proceedings, out of his own volition. There is no
coercion or duress. Mr. Virendra admitted the contents of the
affdavit.
19. Paragraph Nos.1 to 3 of the affdavit read as under :
"(1) I have lodged F.I.R. bearing MECR No.10 of 2018
registered with Pant Nagar Police Station for the
offences under sections 406, 420, 506(2), 467, 468,
471, 120-B read with section 34 of IPC.
(2) As per the Consent Terms dated 5th November
2020 and the order passed by this Honeble Court in
Arbitration Petition (L.) No. 5159 of 2020 dated 6th
November 2020, the disputes between the applicants
and respondent No.1 have amicably been settled and
the parties have therefore agreed to give their consent
towards quashing of the present F.I.R. I am giving my
consent of quashing of F.I.R. being MECR No. 10 of
2018 registered with Pant Nagar Police Station.
(3) I further say that the withdrawal of all allegations
levelled by me in the said F.I.R. are without any
pressure or coercion of any party, their agent or
assignees."
20. In application Nos. 446 of 2021 and 448 of 2021 also Mr.
Virendra-respondent No.1 has sworn affdavits with identical
affrmations, with the change in the particulars of the FIR in each
of those cases.
21. Likewise, in Criminal Application (St.) No. 7737 of 2021, Mr.
Shraddha Talekar, PS 14/21
- 15 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
Nilesh Bhayani, respondent No.1-frst informant therein has
sworn an affdavit on 3rd August 2021. Mr. Nilesh stated before us
that he has decided to resolve the dispute amicably on his own
volition. In terms of settlement arrived at between the parties and
as recorded in Arbitration Petition (OS) (L.) No.5159 of 2020, he
has no objection to quash and set aside the FIRs and the
consequent proceedings initiated against the applicants in the
respective applications. Mr. Nilesh Bhayani admitted the contents
of the affdavit.
22. The material averments in the affdavit of Mr. Nilesh Bhayani
read as under :-
" I say that I have lodged F.I.R. being C.R. No.
125/2018 registered with Pant Nagar Police Station, for
offence under section 420, 465, 468, 471, 34 of I.P.C.
I say that as per the Consent Terms dated
5/11/2020 and Arbitration order dated 6/11/2020, the
dispute between me and Applicant is settled and
therefore I give my consent for Quashing of present
F.I.R. being C.R. No.125/2018 registered with Pant
Nagar Police Station for offence under section 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC against Applicant.
I further state that the withdrawal of all allegations
leveled by me in the said C.R. No. 125/2018 registered
with Pant Nagar Police Station against the applicant are
without any pressure or compulsion of either of the
parties."
23. Mr. Nilesh Bhayani has sworn identical affdavits in Criminal
Application Nos.7744 of 2021, 7747 of 2021 and 7750 of 2021 with
the necessary changes in the particulars of the FIRs.
Shraddha Talekar, PS 15/21
- 16 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
24. In the backdrop of the submissions made across the bar, the
Consent Terms fled and recorded in Arbitration Petition (OS) (L.)
No.5159 of 2020 and the affdavits fled in the respective
applications, we have interacted with Mr. Virendra and Nilesh.
They were in unison in asserting that the dispute which arose
between them over the succession to the family business and
properties, after the demise of their father, has been amicably
resolved in its entirety. The Consent Terms have been executed in
arbitration petition. Those Consent Terms have been acted upon
and these applications are part of the action which they agreed to
take to settle the disputes once and for all.
25. Evidently, Mr.Nilesh and Mr.Virendra fell out over succession
to, and division of, the family business and assets. As it often
happens, when the relations turn sour, proceedings were initiated
against each other. Allegations and counter allegations few thick
and fast. The dispute revolving around the controlling rights over
business gave rise to prosecutions for alleged cheating and forgery
in the management of the affairs of the partnership business. The
spouses of Mr.Nilesh and Mr.Virendra were also not spared and
bore the brunt of the fall out. The allegations of forgery of valuable
security and alleged Wills of late Natwarlal, separately propounded
Shraddha Talekar, PS 16/21
- 17 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
by Mr. Virendra and Mr. Nilesh, are required to be appreciated in
the aforesaid nature of the dispute.
26. Indisputably, the brothers have patched up. They have
decided to bury the hatchet. The issue of succession to the family
business and properties seems to have been worked out. In the
circumstances, we fnd that the claim of the brothers that in
pursuance of the settlement arrived at, in Arbitration Petition (OS)
(L.) No.5159 of 2020, they have decided to withdraw the
allegations and give no objection for quashing of the prosecutions
instituted against each other, appears worthy of acceptance.
27. A useful reference in this context can be made to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another1, wherein the Supreme Court has
observed as under :
"61......... the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour
stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, fnancial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offence 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, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
Shraddha Talekar, PS 17/21
- 18 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
and continuation of the criminal case would put
the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. It is further held that, as inherent power is
of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but
it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz.: (I) to secure the ends
of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
any court."
28. On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the
case, we fnd that all the elements which render it legitimate to
quash the prosecutions in exercise of inherent jurisdiction seem
to have made out. First and foremost, the blood relationship
between Mr. Nilesh and Mr. Virendra. Second, the nature of the
dispute, which has predominatingly a civil favour. Third, it also
arose out of the commercial transaction in the shape of the rival
aspirations to control the family business. And fourth, the dispute
has been resolved in its entirety.
29. In the aforesaid backdrop, in our view, no fruitful purpose
would be served by continuing multiple prosecutions. As the
brothers have resolved the disputes, the possibility of the
prosecutions ending in conviction is extremely remote and bleak.
Continuation of such multiple prosecutions would put
unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system. It would also
Shraddha Talekar, PS 18/21
- 19 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Parties would be put
to grave prejudice as well.
30. Thus, in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent the
abuse of the process of the Court, we are inclined to allow all the
applications and quash the underlying F.I.Rs. and the consequent
proceedings, if any, in all the applications.
31. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application No.318 of 2021 stands
allowed.
The proceedings being C.C. No.
141/SW/2018 pending before the learned
Magistrate, 73rd Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, arising
out of MECR No.10/2018, registered with Pant
Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, stands quashed and
set aside.
(ii) Criminal Application No.446 of 2021 stands
allowed.
The proceedings, being C.C. No.1401/2020
pending before learned Magistrate Court, Vikhroli,
Mumbai, arising out of MECR No.06/2018,
Shraddha Talekar, PS 19/21
- 20 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
registered with Park Site Police Station, Mumbai,
stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) Criminal Application No.448 of 2021 stands
allowed.
The proceedings being C.C.
No.140/SW/2018 pending before the learned
Magistrate, 73rd Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, arising
out of MECR No.09/2018, registered with Pant
Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, stands quashed and
set aside.
(iv) Criminal Application (Stamp) No.7737 of
2021 stands allowed.
The F.I.R. No.125 of 2018, registered with
Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai and all the
consequent proceedings stand quashed and set
aside.
(v) Criminal Application (Stamp) No.7744 of
2021 stands allowed.
The F.I.R. No.89 of 2017, registered with
M.R.A. Police Station, Mumbai and all the
consequent proceedings stand quashed and set
Shraddha Talekar, PS 20/21
- 21 - CRI-APL-318-2021=J.doc
aside.
(vi) Criminal Application (Stamp) No.7747 of
2021 stands allowed.
The F.I.R. No.343 of 2019, registered with
Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai and all the
consequent proceedings stand quashed and set
aside.
(vii) Criminal Application (Stamp) No.7750 of
2021 stands allowed.
The F.I.R. No.57 of 2019, registered with
Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai and all the
consequent proceedings stand quashed and set
aside.
Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Shraddha Talekar, PS 21/21
