Bombay High Court
Yashwinder Singh Ghura vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/7 05 Cri WP-2001.18 (22-02-21)mp J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2001 OF 2018
Yashwinder Singh Ghura, ]
R/o. 28, Ghura House, Navyug Housing ]
Society, JVPD, Mumbai - 400 056. ] ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
(through Inspector of Police, Warje- ]
Malwadi Police Station). ]
2. Vivek Annaji Tanniwar ]
R/o. Flat No.11/12, Kundan Plaza, ]
Bhau Patil Road, Bopodi, Pune - 411 ]
020. ] ... Respondents
...
Mr. Nikhil Mendge for the petitioner.
Dr. F.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Nitesh Mohite i/b Mr. Satyavrat Joshi for respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 is present in the court.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
AJN
2/7 05 Cri WP-2001.18 (22-02-21)mp J.odt
JUDGMENT:- [Per: Manish Pitale, J.]
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of First
Information Report ("FIR") No.453 of 2016 registered at Warje-
Malwadi Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 409 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").
2. There are two accused persons in the said FIR. It was claimed by
respondent No.2 (original complainant) that the petitioner and the said
other accused person had allegedly duped him, which led to registration
of FIR.
3. While filing the writ petition, it was brought to the notice of this
court that the petitioner and respondent No.2 had amicably settled their
dispute and that the petitioner was ready to deposit an amount of
Rs.29,50,000/- in the Registry of this court in terms of the settlement
between the parties and that, such amount could be withdrawn by
respondent No.2.
4. On 19/12/2019, we recorded the fact that the petitioner and
respondent No.2 were jointly requesting for quashing of the FIR. The
petition stood adjourned at the request of respondent No.1-State to make
a statement about the antecedents of the parties. Prior to the said order,
respondent No.2 had placed on record an affidavit in reply stating that
AJN
3/7 05 Cri WP-2001.18 (22-02-21)mp J.odt
the petitioner and respondent No.2 had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding dated 18/01/2018 in pursuance of which, the dispute was
amicably settled. It was further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner
had deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.29,50,000/- in this court and
that he had also paid Rs.7,00,000/- by Demand Draft to respondent
No.2.
5. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an additional affidavit in reply
dated 19/12/2019 stating that he not only had no objection to quashing
of the FIR qua the petitioner but, he also had no objection for quashing
of the FIR against the other accused person i.e. Amit Gadekar. The
relevant paragraphs of the said additional affidavit in reply read as
follows:
"2. I say that I and the Petitioner herein have
entered into the Memorandum of Understanding
('MOU' for short) on 18th January, 2018. I say that I
confirm that the said MOU is signed by me and in
light of this MOU, we have arrived at an amicable
settlement.
3. I say that the Petitioner herein has deposited an
amount of Rs.29,50,000/- in the registry of the
Hon'ble High Court and he has also paid an amount
of Rs.7 Lakhs to me by way of a Demand Draft.
4. I say that in light of the MOU, which is arrived at by
way of understanding between myself and the
Petitioner herein dated 18th January, 2018, I have no
objection for quashing of the FIR bearing C.R.
AJN
4/7 05 Cri WP-2001.18 (22-02-21)mp J.odt
No.453/2106 registered with the Warjemalwadi Police
Station, Pune, qua the Petitioner.
5. I say that also I have no objection for quashing of
the FIR bearing C.R. No.453/2016 registered with the
Warjemalwadi Police Station, Pune, against the
Petitioner as well as shri Amit Gadekar.
6. In so far as the co-accused Shri Amit Gadekar is
concerned I have given my consent for quashing the
FIR bearing C.R. No.453/2016 registered with the
Warjemalwadi Police Station, Pune, against Shri Amit
Gadekar without prejudice to my rights regarding
criminal proceedings in S.C.C. No.411976 of 2015
which is pending before the Honorable 32nd JOINT
CJSD AND ADDL.CJM, PUNE filed under section
138 of Negotiable instrument Act against co-accused
Shri. Amit Gadekar.
7. I say that I do not wish to pursue the FIR bearing
C.R. No.453/2016 registered with the Warjemalwadi
Police Station, Pune, against the present Petitioner
since both parties have now arrived at amicable
settlement and it is in these circumstances that I do
not wish to prosecute the present Petitioner."
6. On 17/02/2021, when the petition was called out for hearing,
respondent No.2 was personally present in the court. We interacted with
him and he stated that he had filed the affidavit in reply and additional
affidavit in reply voluntarily without any coercion and that he had no
objection to the FIR being quashed against the petitioner as well as the
aforesaid other accused person.
AJN
5/7 05 Cri WP-2001.18 (22-02-21)mp J.odt
7. We had adjourned the petition to be listed on 22/02/2021. On the
said date, Dr. Shaikh, learned A.P.P. confirmed the fact that the
petitioner had no criminal antecedents. Even on 22/02/2021,
respondent No.2 was personally present in the court and he reiterated his
no objection for quashing of 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
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.
1 (2012) 10 SCC 303
AJN
6/7 05 Cri WP-2001.18 (22-02-21)mp J.odt
9. Applying the aforesaid position of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that even
in the present case, the dispute between respondent No.2 and accused
persons appears to be of a private and commercial nature and that having
amicably settled the same, respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the
same any more. Therefore, any further proceedings in pursuance of the
said FIR would be of no consequence and the petition therefore,
deserved to be allowed. But, at the same time, we are of the opinion
that the petitioner ought to deposit some costs towards a noble cause.
On a specific query put to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
he stated on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in the court,
that the petitioner will voluntarily deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/-
within two weeks from today, in the account of the Children's Aid
Society, Mumbai, the details of which are as follows:
Name : The Children's Aid Society, Mumbai.
SB. A/c. No. : 02370100005612
Bank : UCO Bank
IFSC Code : UCBA0000237
10. 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.
AJN
7/7 05 Cri WP-2001.18 (22-02-21)mp J.odt
11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (b) of the petition.
12. In view of the specific statement made on affidavit by respondent
No.2 before this court, the FIR is quashed in respect of the petitioner -
Yashwinder Singh Ghura as also other accused person viz. Amit Gadekar.
But, this order will come into effect only on the condition that the
petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount towards costs within the
stipulated period of time. In terms of the settlement between the
parties, respondent No.2 is permitted to withdraw the aforesaid amount
of Rs.29,50,000/- deposited in this court by the petitioner.
13. Rule is made absolute in the aforestated terms.
14. List the matter on 12/03/2021 under caption "For Compliance".
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
AJN
