Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 9255 Bom

                                                 1/5                             26-WP-2494-2021.doc




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2494 OF 2021

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.                                ...Petitioner

         Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                ...Respondents
                                ...
Mr. Ashok Singh a/w. Mr. R.N. Gaonkar, Ms. Mahi Lalka & Pravin
Singh for Petitioner.
Ms. Ridhi Gada for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Mukesh Pabari Respondent No. 2 is present through video
conferencing.
Mr. S.R. Page for Respondent No. 3.
                                ...

                                        CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                                N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

DATE : 15th JULY, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This petition is filed with following substantive prayer:-

i) quash the order dated 8th September, 2020 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 13 th Court, Dadar, Mumbai in Complaint Case No. 29/SW/ 2020 and MECR No. 1 of 2020 dated 12.11.2020 registered under Section 406, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code before Dadar Police Station, Mumbai against the Petitioner and set aside all proceedings arising therefrom;

Bhagyawant Punde

2/5 26-WP-2494-2021.doc

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

Respondent No. 2, who appears in-person, and learned counsel

appearing for Respondent No. 3 jointly submit that the parties have

amicably settled the dispute and they have no objection for

quashing the pending proceedings.

4. We have interacted with the 2nd respondent who appears

in-person, so as to to ascertain, whether such amicable settlement

is arrived at between the parties with a free will and without any

coercion. Respondent No. 2 stated that he has no objection to quash

the proceedings i.e. Complaint Case No. 29/SW/2020 and MECR

No. 1 of 2020 dated 12.11.2020, registered under Section 406, 420

read with 34 of IPC. The Respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit.

Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the said affidavit read as under:-

2. I say that the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 8th September, 2020 took cognizance under Section 406 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused and directed the concerned Police State to register the FIR and investigate the matter under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, a MECR No. 1 of 2020 came to be registered on 12.11.2020 before Dadar Police Station under Section 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3.

3. I say that, an amicable settlement has arrived between me and the Applicant. That accordingly we have entered into a Consent Terms dated 11th March, 2021. That as per the

Bhagyawant Punde

3/5 26-WP-2494-2021.doc

agreed terms and condition between us, I am

of 2020 dated 12.11.2020 registered with Dadar Police Station, Mumbai against the Petitioner.

4. I say that I don't have any grievance against the Petitioner and we have settled the dispute amicably. Furthermore I don't want to pursue the said MERC against the Petitioner.

5. I say that I have amicably settled the dispute with the Petitioner and I have no personal grievance, grudge.

6. I say that I have no objection if this Hon'ble court grants the reliefs to the Applicant as prayed by them in their Application.

5. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and

the Respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing the proceedings

i.e. Complaint Case No. 29/SW/2020 and MECR No. 1 of 2020

dated 12.11.2020, registered under Section 406, 420 read with 34

of IPC, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the

aforesaid proceedings.

6. Respondent No. 2 has filed the affidavit and has given no

objection for quashing the aforesaid proceedings. Therefore, further

continuation of proceedings i.e. Complaint Case No. 29/SW/2020

and MECR No. 1 of 2020 dated 12.11.2020, registered under

Section 406, 420 read with 34 of IPC, would be an exercise in

futility and would tantamount to abuse of the process of

law/concerned Court.

Bhagyawant Punde





                                         4/5                        26-WP-2494-2021.doc

7. 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

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 is further 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.

1    2012 (10) SCC 303

Bhagyawant Punde





                                         5/5                        26-WP-2494-2021.doc

8. In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs and

keeping in view the affidavit filed by 2 nd respondent, thereby giving

no objection for quashing the aforesaid proceedings, the chances of

conviction of petitioner are remote and bleak.

9. In view of above, to secure the ends of justice and

prevent the abuse of the process of concerned Court, the petition

deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in

terms of prayer clause (I), which is reproduced in para 2 of this

judgment.

10. Rule made absolute to above extent. The writ petition

stands disposed of.

     ( N. J. JAMADAR, J.)                            (S. S. SHINDE, J.)




Bhagyawant Punde