Bombay High Court
Mohammed Javed Abdul Rehman Patel ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 January, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/5 Judgment WP-191-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.191 OF 2021
1. Mohammed Javed Abdul Rehman Patel }
Aged 44 years, Occ : Business, }
Residing at 403, 4th Floor, }
An-Nazir Bldg., Momin Nagar, }
Patel Estate Road, }
Jogeshwari (W), }
Mumbai - 400 102 }
}
2. Abdul Wahab Mohammed Yasin Sawdi }
Aged : 36 years, Occ : Business }
Residing at 401, 4th floor, }
Noor Castle CHS Ltd., Opp. Noorani }
Masjid, Pathanwadi, Rani Sati Marg, }
Malad (East), Mumbai - 400 097 } .. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra through }
Turbhe MIDC Police Station, }
Through Public Prosecutor }
}
2. Maqsood Abdul Gani Moin }
Aged 43 years, Occ : Business, }
Residing at A/3/1203,Hill Park Tower, }
Agrwal Estate, Jogeshwari (W), }
Mumbai - 400 102 } .. Respondents
...
Mr.Sayed Zia for the Petitioners.
Mr.Mehul Thakker for Respondent No.2.
Mr.Maqsood Abdul Gani Moin-Respondent No.2 present in Court.
Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : 25th JANUARY, 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/5 Judgment WP-191-21.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the
parties and heard finally.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Respondent
No.2 submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and to
that effect, consent terms are arrived at between the parties. Learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, has tendered across the bar,
affidavit-cum-no objection. Same is taken on record.
3. Respondent No.2 is present before this Court. He has stated
that it is his voluntary act to enter into settlement and he is
withdrawing the allegations made against the Petitioners. He
further stated that he does not wish to prosecute the Petitioners and
he has no objection to quash the impugned FIR.
4. Paras 1 to 5 of the affidavit-cum-no objection filed by
Respondent No.2 read as under:
"1. I say that due to difference of opinion and on account of
misunderstanding, initially I (Maqsood Moin Abdul Gani the
Respondent No.2) lodged a complaint with the Turbhe MIDC
Police Station, Navi Mumbai against the Petitioners. The
Turbhe MIDC Police station registered FIR No.342 of 2020
dated 18/09/2020 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code
and recorded my statement thereunder.
2. I say that during the relevant time the matter was
mutually settled between me and the Petitioners along with
one of our partner Mr.Ali Husain Ahmed Sunesra and we
jointly executed Deed of Settlement between Petitioners and
Respondent No.2 along with one Mr.Ali Husain Ahmed
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/5 Judgment WP-191-21.doc
Sunesra to that effect and I have accordingly informed the
Respondent No.1 about mutual settlement of the matter and
requested not to proceed further in the matter.
3. I say that we are going to act as per the Deed of
Settlement and we will abide by the Deed of Settlement. I say
that I am filing present affidavit with an understanding that
the Petitioners shall not repeat the offence again.
4. I say that all disputes between me and the Petitioners
above-named are settled and whatever allegations leveled by
me against the Petitioners above-named are hereby
withdrawn. I have no grievance/allegations against the
Petitioners. I say that since the dispute is settled I have NO
OBJECTION if this Hon'ble Court quashes the criminal
proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 by lodging FIR
No.342 of 2020 dated 18/09/2020 registered by Turbhe
MIDC Police station, Mumbai against the Petitioners above-
named under Section 420 r/w 34 of The Indian Penal Code.
5. I pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1 by
lodging FIR No.342 of 2020 dated 18/09/2020 registered by
Turbhe MIDC Police station, Mumbai against the Petitioners
above-named under section 420 r/w 34 of The Indian Penal
Code."
5. 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 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
1 2012 (10) SCC 303
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/5 Judgment WP-191-21.doc
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.
6. Since the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have amicably
settled the dispute and Respondent No.2 has no intention to pursue
the allegations in the first information report, further investigation
of Crime No.342 OF 2020 registered with Turbhe MIDC Police
Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code would be an exercise in futility
and the chances of conviction of the Petitioners would be bleak and
remote.
7. In that view of the matter, to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the petition deserves
to be allowed and the impugned FIR No.342 of 2020 registered with
MIDC Turbhe Police Station is required to be quashed.
8. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a), which reads as under :
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/5 Judgment WP-191-21.doc
"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the FIR
No.342 of 2020 dated 18.09.2020 registered with Turbhe
MIDC Police Station, Navi Mumbai under section 420 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code."
9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
