Bombay High Court
Pravin Tulsiram Sakpal And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 Judgment WPST-7245-20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.7245 OF 2020
1. Pravin Tulsiram Sakpal }
Age-53 years, Occ-Developer }
Residing at RH No.12, }
Jimmy Tower, Sector 4, Vashi, }
Navi Mumbai }
}
2. Rajshree Pravin Sakpal }
Age 50, Occ- Developer }
Residing at RH No.12, }
Jimmy Tower, Sector 4, Vashi, }
Navi Mumbai } Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra }
Representing APMC Police Station, }
Navi Mumbai, }
(Through the office of Public Prosecutor) }
}
2. Mukesh Manoharlal Rekhani }
1804, Octaves Building, }
Hiranandani Garden, }
Powai, Mumbai :- 400 073 } Respondents
Mr.Abdullah Katlariwala i/b SSB Legal & Advisory
for the Petitioners.
Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for State.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12th JANUARY, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 19th JANUARY, 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 05:05:12 :::
2/5 Judgment WPST-7245-20.doc
JUDGMENT (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer for
quashing of FIR bearing No.160 of 2017 dated 8th June, 2017
registered at Police Station APMC, Navi Mumbai, for the alleged
offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The petitioners are husband and wife and they are said to be
directors of a company. According to respondent No.2 (original
complainant), the petitioners, who are engaged in business of
builders and developers, cheated him and thereby allegedly
committed the said offence.
4. According to respondent No.2, the petitioners had promised
him to hand over a piece of property in lieu of certain amounts that
were due from the company in which petitioner No.1 was a director.
According to respondent No.2, despite such promise being made, the
petitioners did not take any steps to ensure that the developed
property in question was handed over to the said respondent. It is
claimed that when respondent No.2 sought to pursue the matter, he
was told that it was the petitioners in their personal capacity, who
had made the promise to him and that therefore, the company was
not liable to hand over the property to him.
5. Respondent No.2 then pursued the petitioners in respect of his
demand and according to him, the petitioners did not pay heed to
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/5 Judgment WPST-7245-20.doc
his requests, as a consequence of which, he was constrained to
approach the police, resulting in the registration of the said FIR. In
pursuance of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the
matter and thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court for
quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the complaint and FIR.
6. During pendency of the present petition, respondent No.2 has
filed affidavit dated 14th December, 2020 before this Court, giving
consent for quashing of the said FIR. It is specifically stated in the
said consent affidavit at paragraph 4 that the petitioners have agreed
to assign their rights in 27500 sq.ft. of super built up area to
respondent No.2 in a project which is proposed to be constructed by
one 'Galaxy Group'. It is further stated by respondent No.2 that in
view of the same, his dispute with the petitioners stands fully and
finally settled.
7. On 7th January, 2021, this Court interacted with respondent
No.2, who was personally present in the Court. This Court recorded
in the order dated 7th January, 2021 that respondent No.2
categorically stated that he did not wish to prosecute the criminal
case against the petitioners.
8. The aforesaid material on record thus shows that insofar as
respondent No.2 is concerned, he no longer has any grievance
against the petitioners and the only question that remains is, as to
whether the FIR and the charge-sheet can be quashed in view of the
settlement of dispute between the parties.
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/5 Judgment WPST-7245-20.doc
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh 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 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
resolves 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, 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.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Giansingh (supra),
the nature of grievance in the present case, sought to be raised by
respondent No.2 appears to be more a dispute of a personal nature,
having commercial overtones. Applying the said position of law, we
are of the opinion that continuance of the criminal proceedings in
the facts and circumstances of the case would be of no use and it
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/5 Judgment WPST-7245-20.doc
would be in the interest of justice that the prayer made on behalf of
the petitioners is granted.
11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a), which reads as follows :
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue
appropriate writ calling for records and proceedings of
Complaint bearing No.RCC 464 of 2019 and charge sheet
bearing No.18 of 2019 filed before 1 st Jt C.J.J.D. JMFC, Vashi
and after going through records and proceedings thereof be
pleased to quash and set aside the said Complaint, said FIR
bearing No.160 of 2017 and also charge-sheet filed therein"
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
