Bombay High Court
Gazanfar Mohammed Saleh Navdekar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 23 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 Judgment APL-492-20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.492 OF 2020
1. Gazanfar Mohammed Saleh Navdekar ]
]
2. Nazim Mohammed Saleh Navdekar ]
R/at 101, Nazim Navdekar Building ]
Kacchi Mohalla, Panvel, Dist. Raigad ]
]
3. Asim Mohammed Siraj Patel ]
]
4. Nazim Mohammed Siraj Patel ]
Both R/at Taloja Village, Tal.Panvel, ]
Dist Raigad ] .. Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through Sr.P.I. Taloja, Dist. Raigad) ]
]
2. Mohammad Shafi Yusuf Patel ]
R/o 119(1), Taloja Gaon, ]
Near Akasa Masjid, Tal : Panvel ]
District : Raigad ] .. Respondents
Mr.Swapnil R. Chopade Patil for the Applicants.
Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr.Prashant Patil for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th FEBRUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2021 23:02:39 :::
2/5 Judgment APL-492-20.doc
JUDGMENT (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)
1. By this application, the applicants have invoked inherent
powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing of FIR bearing No.249 of 2019 dated 14 th
December, 2019 registered at Police Station Taloja, Navi Mumbai
whereby offences under Sections 419, 465, 466, 468, 471 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been registered against the
applicants.
2. The aforesaid FIR stood registered on the basis of a complaint
submitted by respondent No.2 wherein he raised a grievance that
certain portion of land, belonging to him, had been encroached upon
and that there was tampering with documents so as to show that the
land belonging to the said respondent was owned and possessed by
the applicants.
3. It is specifically stated in the application that the applicants
and respondent No.2 decided to settle the dispute amicably by
intervention of common friends. As a result of the aforesaid
exercise, the differences stood sorted out and the applicants agreed
to execute a sale deed and convey the property in question at a
mutually agreed price.
4. This Court issued notice in the present application on 2 nd
February, 2021. At this stage itself, respondent No.2 was
represented by counsel and it was stated that an affidavit of
respondent No.2 confirming the settlement between the parties has
been placed on record.
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/5 Judgment APL-492-20.doc
5. Although the fact of settlement between the parties was
brought to the notice of this Court, we thought it fit to inquire from
learned APP appearing for respondent No.1/State to report as to
whether there were any antecedents of the applicants. Learned APP
made inquiries and reported to this Court that there were no cases
registered against the applicants.
6. Respondent No.2 was present before this Court on 16 th
February, 2021. When we interacted with him, he confirmed that
affidavit placed before this Court was executed on his instructions
and that the dispute between the parties was now amicably settled.
It was also submitted that the grievance arose on the basis of a
misunderstanding between the parties and that since the dispute
was now resolved, he did not wish to pursue the matter any more.
The relevant contents of the affidavit of respondent No.2 read as
follows :
"2. I say that, the applicant and I were known to each other
and therefore we have resolved our disputes amicably and
therefore I have do not have any type of grievances against
the Applicants. The applicants are agreeing to execute the
sale deed and convey the property which was purchased by
them from the complainant a price mutually agreed by them
on 23rd October 2020.
3. I say that, I am aware that, I am submitting that, I do not
have any objection if the complaint lodged by me which is
registered as CR No.249/2019 for offences punishable
under section 419, 465, 466, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC and all
the proceedings arising pursuant to said complaint be
quashed. I say that, I do not want to pursue the said
complaint as against the Applicants."
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/5 Judgment APL-492-20.doc
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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 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.
8. We have perused the FIR as also the contents of the
application and the aforesaid affidavit placed on record by
respondent No.2. We find that the dispute between the parties arose
out of the misunderstanding and that since the dispute now stood
resolved and there is no possibility of respondent No.2 supporting
the allegations made against the applicants, further proceedings in
pursuance to the said FIR would be of no consequence. Applying
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/5 Judgment APL-492-20.doc
the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
we are of the opinion that the present application deserves to be
allowed.
9. In view of the above, the application stands allowed in terms
of prayer clause (a), which reads as follows :
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court may pass appropriate orders
and quash and set aside the C.R.No.249/2019 registered
with Taloja Police Station Dist Raigad and all the further
proceedings thereof as against the applicants."
10. At the same time, we are of the opinion that some costs needs
to be imposed on the applicants and that such amount needs to be
utilised towards a noble cause. Accordingly, we direct the applicants
to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only)
towards costs within a period of four weeks from today in the
account of the Children's Aid Society, the details of which are as
follows :
Name : The Children's Aid Society, Mumbai
SB Account No. : 02370100005612
Bank : UCO Bank
IFSC Code : UCBA0000237
11. It is made clear that this order will take effect only after
deposit of the aforesaid amount of costs within the stipulated period
of time by the applicants.
12. The Criminal Application stands disposed of in the above
terms.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
