Bombay High Court
M/S Inox Wind Indrastructure ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 September, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
66-wp-2520-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2520 OF 2021
M/s. Inox Wind Infrastructure Services Limited
and Others ...Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Another ...Respondents
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. M. Mishra, Mr. Akhilesh
Singh, Mr. G. Patni i/b. Khaitan and Co., for the Petitioners.
VISHAL
Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashok Paranjpe and Mr.
SUBHASH Tushar Kadam i/b. MDP and Partners, for Respondent No. 2.
PAREKAR
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent-State.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date:
2021.09.04
14:45:38 +0530 N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2021
---------------
JUDGMENT : (Per N.J.Jamadar, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent
of the counsels for the parties, heard fnalll.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) is
preferred to quash and set aside first information report No. 282 of
2021 initially registered with Pydhonie police station, Mumbai and
subsequently transferred for investigation to Economic Offences
Wing, Mumbai and renumbered as EOW CR No. 47 of 2021, at the
instance of respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under
section 120-B, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Vishal Parekar, P.A. 1/8
66-wp-2520-2021.doc
3. The petitioner No. 2 is a company registered under the
Companies Act. It is a reputed wind energy solutions provider and
leading player in the wind energy business. The petitioner No. 1 is a
100% subsidiary of petitioner No.2. The petitioner No. 3 is the
Director of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner No. 4 is the CEO of
petitioner No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is the authorized
representative of M/s. Dewanchand Ramsaran Corporation Private
Limited (M/s.DRCPL) which is engaged in the business of renting
cranes used inter alia for lifting and attaching the heavy parts of
windmills and to install the wind mills.
4. The gravamen of indictment against the petitioners is that the
petitioners utilized the services rendered by M/s.DRCPL and made a
false promise that in lieu of charges of Rs. 11,99,59,359/- for the said
service, they will give a wind mill, despite having known that the
wind mill could not be installed at the represented place and thereby
deceived the M/s. DRCPL.
5. Initially, the petitioners approached the Court with a case that
the registration of the impugned F.I.R and continuance of
investigation pursuant thereto, is a sheer abuse of the process of the
Court and, thus, sought quashment of the impugned F.I.R and
consequent proceeding.
Vishal Parekar, P.A. 2/8
66-wp-2520-2021.doc
6. Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned senior advocate for the petitioners
and Mr. Manoj Mohite, learned senior advocate for respondent No. 2
make a joint statement that during the pendency of this petition, the
petitioners and respondent No. 2 have amicably resolved the dispute
and in accordance with the consent terms, executed by and between
the petitioners and respondent No. 2. The consent terms are
tendered for the perusal of the Court. The learned senior counsels
further submit that in pursuance of the consent terms, respondent
No. 2 has fled affdavit giving express consent for quashing the
impugned F.I.R.
7. The respondent No. 2 Hemant Rajshri appeared before the
Court. We have interacted with respondent No. 2. Mr. Rajshri
submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and M/s.DRCPL
has been amicably resolved. Consent terms have been executed. Mr.
Rajshri admitted the contents of the consent terms and execution
thereof. The consent terms are taken on record and marked (Exhibit
A) for identifcation. Mr. Rajashri further submitted that in
accordance with the consent terms, the petitioners have paid Rs.
2,50,00,000/-. Mr. Rajshri further submitted that M/s.DRCPL is
agreeable to receive the balance payment of Rs. 9,50,00,000/- in
accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph No. 5 of the
consent terms.
Vishal Parekar, P.A. 3/8
66-wp-2520-2021.doc
8. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 7 of the consent terms read as under:
4] The Petitioners agree to pay the Settlement Amount to
DRCPL towards full and fnal settlement of their disputes and
differences. The Petitioners agree that an initial payment of
Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only) shall
be made by them to the Respondent NO.2 / DRCPL by way of a
Pay Order which shall be handed over to their counsel /
advocates before the Hon'ble Court at the next date of hearing
of the said Petition which is currently scheduled for 2nd
September 2021,
5] The balance payment of Rs.9,50,00,000/- (Rupees Nine
Crores Fifty Lakhs only) shall be made by the Petitioners to
the Respondent NO.2 / DRCPL by way of post-dated cheques
which shall be handed over to their counsel / advocates before
the Hon'ble Court at the next date of hearing of the said
Petition which is currently scheduled for 2nd September 2021.
The details of the postdated cheques are as under :
Sr. Cheque Bank & Branch Amount (in INR) Date of Cheque
No. No.
1. 263814 Yes Bank, NOIDA 2,50,00,000/- 22 September 2021
2. 263815 Yes Bank, NOIDA 2,00,00,000/- 22 October 2021
3. 263816 Yes Bank, NOIDA 2,00,00,000/- 22 November 2021
4. 263817 Yes Bank, NOIDA 1,50,00,000/- 22 December 2021
5. 263818 Yes Bank, NOIDA 1,50,00,000/- 22 January 2022
6] The Petitioners undertake to make payment of the above
postdated cheques and they shall maintain suffcient balance
in the concerned bank account from which the payment will
be made to the Respondent No.2 / DRCPL, to ensure that any
cheques deposited/ encashed by the Respondent No.2 / DRCPL
are duly honoured. If any cheque is dishonoured, the unpaid
amount will become due payable with interest 15% per annum
and Third party shall be entitled to adopt appropriate
proceedings, civil or criminal or approach EOW, as they may
deem ft & proper.
7] The Respondent No.2 / DRCPL agree that subject to the
receipt of the Settlement Amount as above, they shall not
have any additional claim against the Petitioners. The
Respondent No.2 / DRCPL further agree to extend their
support and cooperation to the Petitioners in the said Petition.
The Respondent No.2 / DRCPL further agree that they shall
not initiate any legal proceedings against the Petitioner with
respect to any dispute under the said Petition, except as
provided in the Settlement Agreement.
Vishal Parekar, P.A. 4/8
66-wp-2520-2021.doc
9. Mr. Rajshri admitted the contents of the affdavit. Paragraph
Nos. 4 to 7 of his affdavit read as under:
4] I say that after the registration of the said FIR and the
fling of the captioned Petition, the representative of the
parties, i.e. M/s. Inox Wind Infrastructure Services Limited
(Petitioner No.1), M/s. Inox Wind Limited ( Petitioner No.2)
and M/s. Dewanchand Ramsaran Corporation Private
Limited, have entered into settlement discussions with each
other with the intent to fully, fnally, and completely conclude
all pending disputes, disagreements, grievances together with
all existing and potential claims, damages, and causes of
action between the said parties and in furtherance of the
same have decided to record the terms of such settlement in
the form of Consent Terms and Settlement Agreement to be
entered into between the parties.
5] Accordingly, I state that the parties have amicably settled
the disputes between them and have come to a common
understanding and have further entered into Consent Terms
and Settlement Agreement which was executed on even date.
6] I state that I have perused the terms of the Consent Terms
and Settlement Agreement, and the same was entered into
without any coercion so that all the pending disputes between
the parties comes to an end.
7] In the aforesaid situation, I do not have any objection if the
present Petition is allowed and the said FIR registered against
the Petitioners is quashed and set aside, I undertake that I
shall not proceed against the Petitioners in the future by
adopting any legal civil/criminal remedy or in any manner
whatsoever in connection with the said FIR.
10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submissions, statement and
averments in the affdavit of respondent No. 2, we have perused the
material on record, especially the allegations in the frst information
report. Evidently, the dispute arose out of a commercial transaction.
It has predominantly a civil favour. It seems that petitioners and
respondent No. 2 have arrived at an amicable settlement of the
Vishal Parekar, P.A. 5/8
66-wp-2520-2021.doc
dispute, in all its manifestations, in accordance with the consent
terms, extracted above.
11. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab1, a Three Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court, considered the relative scope of the
provisions contained in Section 482 and Section 320 of the Code and
exposited the power of the High Court to quash the FIR or
prosecution in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as under:
"61. ......... .... But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, fnancial, 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, High Court may quash 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 criminal case would put 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. In
other words, the High Court must consider whether it would
be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with
the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in the affrmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding." `
(emphasis supplied)
12. In the instant case, the essential condition for exercise of
discretion to quash the F.I.R on the basis of the settlement arrived at
1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303.
Vishal Parekar, P.A. 6/8
66-wp-2520-2021.doc
between the parties, are made out. The genesis of the alleged offence
is in the commercial transaction. The dispute has predominantly a
civil favour. In view of the settlement of the dispute, it is extremely
unlikely that the respondent No. 2 would support the prosecution
and it would end in conviction. Continuance of the prosecution, in
such circumstances, would serve no fruitful purpose except putting
unnecessary burden on the criminal justice system. The parties
would also be put to grave prejudice. Thus, in order to secure the
ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, we
are persuaded to allow the petition.
13. In the backdrop of the nature of the dispute, we deem it
appropriate to direct the petitioners to pay costs for a worthy cause.
Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned senior counsel for the petitioners fairly
submitted that the petitioners would pay Rs. 51,000/- which may be
utilized for the beneft of children. We are thus persuaded to direct
the petitioners to deposit the costs of Rs. 51,000/- in the following
account of Children Aid Society, to be utilized for the beneft of the
children in New Children Home, Mankhurd.
Name of Bank Account - Children Aid Soc Donation
Bank Account No. - 02370100005612
Bank Name & Branch - UCO Bank, Matunga, Mumbai
IFSC Code - UCBA0000237
Vishal Parekar, P.A. 7/8
66-wp-2520-2021.doc
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
a] The petition stands allowed subject to deposit of Rs. 51,000/- in
the above numbered account Children Aid Society within a period of
three weeks from today.
b] The First Information Report No. 282 of 2021 registered with
Pydhonie police station, Mumbai and re registered as EOW C.R.No.
47 of 2021 and all the consequent proceeding arising therefrom
stand quashed and set aside.
c] The undertaking given in the consent terms (Exhibit A)
recorded above are accepted as undertakings to the Court.
d] Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
Vishal Parekar, P.A. 8/8
