Bombay High Court
Pasupuleti Shriniwasalu Prop. Of ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/7 26 Cri WP-953.20 (15-02-21)mp J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.953 OF 2020
Pasupuleti Shriniwasalu, ]
Proprietor of M/s. Shri Venkatramanna ]
Auto Finance (RSP), ]
R/at., 510, 11th Street, Podalakuru Road, ]
Lake View Colony, Andhrakesari Nagar, ]
Nellor, Andhra Pradesh - 524 004. ] ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
through Inspector In Charge, Dadar ]
Police Station, to be served through ]
Public Prosecutor, High Court, ]
Mumbai. ]
2. Indraneel Moon ]
(Deputy Manager Assets Finance), ]
of Bombay adult, Indian Inhabitant, ]
In Fortune Integrated Assets Finance ]
Limited, Off. At 2101, Naman ]
Midtown, A-Wing, Senapati Bapat ]
Marg, Elphinston Road (W), Mumbai ]
- 400 013. ] ... Respondents
...
Mr. Sushil S. Upadhyay for the petitioner.
Dr. F.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Indraneel Moon, respondent No.2, is present in the court.
...
AJN
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 16:46:56 :::
2/7 26 Cri WP-953.20 (15-02-21)mp J.odt
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
JUDGMENT:- [Per: Manish Pitale, J.]
1. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for
quashing the First Information Report ("FIR") No.169 of 2018 registered
by the Dadar Police Station, Dist. Mumbai under Sections 420, 465, 468
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").
2. Respondent No.2 is the Deputy Manager Assets Finance of a
company called Fortune Integrated Assets Finance Limited, Mumbai.
Respondent No.2 is the original complainant, at whose behest the
aforesaid FIR was registered.
3. The grievance of respondent No.2 was that the proprietor concern
of the petitioner had failed to return an amount of Rs.79,78,145/- in the
course of business. It was the assertion of respondent No.2 that he had
entered into a business understanding with the petitioner with respect to
sale and purchase of used vehicles and that during the course of such
business transactions, the petitioner had failed to account for the
aforesaid amount and that, information regarding 59 such used vehicles
and their owners were not correctly provided by the petitioner to
AJN
3/7 26 Cri WP-953.20 (15-02-21)mp J.odt
respondent No.2.
4. After the FIR was registered, the parties sat together to explore the
possibility of amicable settlement of their inter se dispute. In pursuance
of the same, the parties have executed consent terms and placed them
before the Sessions Court at Bombay where the petitioner had applied
for grant of anticipatory bail. On the basis of such consent terms, the
Sessions Court, Mumbai, passed an order dated 24/04/2019 granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. In terms of the settlement between the parties, the petitioner paid
certain amounts to respondent No.2 and on 14/02/2020, respondent
No.2 issued a "No Due Certificate" to the petitioner. It is in this
backdrop, that the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the
FIR.
6. Respondent No.2 appeared before this court in person, and filed
consent affidavit for quashing of the FIR. The relevant contents of the
said affidavit reads as follows:
"1. I say that I have been served with copy of
Petition filed by the Petitioner hereinabove and after
going through the contents thereof I have to submit as
under:
2. I say that I have lodged an C.R. No.169/2018 in
Dadar Police Station, Dist. Mumbai registered under
AJN
4/7 26 Cri WP-953.20 (15-02-21)mp J.odt
sec. 420, 465, 468, 471 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE and Petitioner has filed the Anticipatory Bail
application bearing no.ABA/2070/2018 before the
Hon'ble Session court, Bombay.
3. I say that we both have filed a consent term
which was made by mutually and the same consent term
was filed on 23/04/2019 and as per the consent term
both the parties were agreed to pay of Rs.67,11,751/- as
on 13th September, 2019 but Rs.30,00,000/- the
petitioner has submitted a revised proposal email dated
31/10/2019 to pay Rs.30,00,000/- from October, 2019
to January 2020 toward full and final settlement of dues
and paid as per the letter dated 27/12/2019.
4. I say that as per this letter the Petitioner has also
requested to waive off the balance Rs.37,11,751/-
(Rupees thirty seven lakhs eleven thousand seven
hundred fifty one only). And as per the same letter the
original complainant and company both were agreed to
waive off the said amount of Rs.37,11,751/- (Rupees
thirty lakhs eleven thousand seven hundred fifty one
only.)
5. I say that the petitioner has paid all the
outstanding dues of the original complainant/company
and the finally the "FORTUNE INTEGRATED
ASSEETS FINANCE LTD." And original complainant
has issued NO DUES CERTIFICATE/NO DUES
CONFIRMATION letter dated 14/02/2020.
6. I say that as dispute is already settled between
original complainant/company and the Petitioner there
is no need to further prosecute the FIR No.169/2018
registered by the Dadar Police Station, Dist. Mumbai
registered under sec. 420, 465, 468, 471 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE."
AJN
5/7 26 Cri WP-953.20 (15-02-21)mp J.odt
7. Respondent No.2 was personally present in the court. We
interacted with him and he stated that the affidavit has been sworn on
the basis of the consent terms arrived at between the parties and the
petitioner has indeed paid a specific amount as agreed and the balance
amount was waived off by respondent No.2. On this basis, respondent
No.2 has stated that he has no objection in quashing the FIR.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
& Anr.1 has held that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominately civil flavour stand on a 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, 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 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
has also held that inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
AJN
6/7 26 Cri WP-953.20 (15-02-21)mp J.odt
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.
9. Applying the said position of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that
the dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature. The parties
having settled their dispute amicably and the terms of the settlement
having been satisfied, there is no possibility of respondent No.2
supporting the allegations made in the FIR and the possibility of the
petitioner being convicted is remote. Therefore, there will be no purpose
in continuing with the proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR. In
view of the above, the present petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) of the petition, which reads as follows:
"a) that this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue appropriate
writ, order and direction directing quashing of the said
FIR No.169 of 2018 registered by the Dadar Police
Station, Dist. Mumbai registered under sec 420, 465,
468, 471 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE such terms
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
10. However, it is made clear that the FIR is quashed on the condition
that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- as cost within
four weeks from today, in the account of the Children's Aid Society,
Mumbai, the details of which are as follows:
AJN
7/7 26 Cri WP-953.20 (15-02-21)mp J.odt
Name : The Children's Aid Society, Mumbai.
SB. A/c. No. : 02370100005612
Bank : UCO Bank
IFSC Code : UCBA0000237
11. On the costs being deposited by the petitioner in the aforesaid
bank account, the Children's Aid Society, Mumbai, shall immediately
transfer the said amount of costs to the New and Additional Children's
Home, Mankhurd, Mumbai.
12. It is further made clear that the cost is condition precedent for
quashing of the FIR and it is only upon satisfaction of the aforesaid
condition that the FIR shall stand quashed.
13. Rule is made absolute in the aforestated terms.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
AJN
