Chintha Satish Reddy S/O Chintha ... vs State Of Mah. Pso Ps Kalamna Nagpur ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11569 Bom

                                              1                               30-apl-518-21j.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 518 OF 2021


  1. Chintha Satish Reddy S/o. Chintha
     Narsimha Reddy,
     Aged about 59 years, Occ. Business,
     R/o. Flat No. 301, Muddasani Classic Bagh,
     Amberpet, Hyderabad,
     Andhra Pradesh-500013.

  2. Jayaram S/o. Megji Patel,
     Aged 48 years, Occ. Business,
     R/o. Plot No. 18, Flat No. 302,
     Sunitha Residency, Mythri Nagar,
     Behind Metro Whole Sale Vignana
     Puri Colony, Kukatpally,
     Medchalmalkajgiri, Telangana-500072.                                . . . APPLICANTS

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. State of Maharashtra through
     Police Station Officer,
     Police Station, Kalamna, Nagpur.

  2. Kantilal Maganlal Makwana,
     Aged 47 years, Occ. Business,
     R/o. Plot No. B-8, Near Water Tank,
     Netaji Nagar, Bharatwada Road,
     Nagpur-440035.                                                . . NON-APPLICANTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri D. V. Mahajan, Advocate for applicants.
 Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 23.08.2021

2 30-apl-518-21j.odt

JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

3. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the applicants are challenging the First Information Report

(FIR) bearing Crime No. 923/2020, dated 14.12.2020 for the offence

punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code registered with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station.

4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicants at the

instance of the non-applicant no. 2. After the registration of the said

offence, the investigation of the said crime has been handed over to

the Economic Offence Wing, Nagpur City. The allegations against the

applicants are to the effect that they assured and promised to give 8-10

times of the invested amount within 3-4 months of the investment.

Relying on that promise, the non-applicant no. 2 invested an amount

of ₹ 97 lakhs. It is alleged that when the non-applicant no. 2 97 lakhs. It is alleged that when the non-applicant no. 2

requested for refund of the said amount, the applicants avoided to

refund the said amount hence, the non-applicant no. 2 lodged the said

FIR.

3 30-apl-518-21j.odt

5. The applicants have therefore challenged the FIR by filing

present application. This Court on 06.05.2021 issued notice by

recording the statement of the applicants that the applicants had

already repaid an amount of ₹ 97 lakhs. It is alleged that when the non-applicant no. 2 97 lakhs to the informant. During the

pendency of the present application, the matter was referred to the

mediation. The Co-ordinator, Mediation Centre, High Court, Nagpur

has submitted a report dated 20.08.2021, stating that parties have

settled the dispute between them by the Settlement Deed dated

17.08.2021. The said Settlement Deed is produced on record. The

said Settlement Deed is signed by the applicants, non-applicant no. 2

and by their respective Advocates. The said Settlement Deed records

that in terms of the condition stated in the said Settlement Deed, the

parties will jointly pray for disposing the application.

6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR,

reply filed by the non-applicant no. 1 and the Settlement Deed dated

17.08.2021. On scrutiny of the aforesaid material, we are satisfied

that the offence alleged against the applicants are personal in nature.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs.

State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 has taken a view that it

is advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely

personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of

compromise even in criminal proceeding as keeping the matter alive

4 30-apl-518-21j.odt

with no possibility of conviction in favour of the prosecution is a luxury

which Courts, grossly over-burdened, as they are, cannot afford and

that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and

meaningful litigation.

8. We are therefore satisfied that the FIR lodged against the

applicants deserves to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass

the following order:-

The First Information Report No. 923/2020, dated

14.12.2020 registered against the applicants with the non-applicant

no. 1- Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above term.

                          JUDGE                                           JUDGE




RR Jaiswal