Bombay High Court
Union Quality Plastic Ltd., ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 February, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1)
52 criappln-2871.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
52 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2871 OF 2021
UNION QUALITY PLASTIC LTD.,
THROUGH RAJENDRA BAJRANG SHINDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. T.W. Pathan, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent No.1.
Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 08-02-2022.
ORDER :
1. Heard fnally with consent at the admission stage.
2. The applicant - accused is seeking quashing of
F.I.R. in Crime No. 666/2017 registered with Shrigonda Police
Station, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar for the
offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the
ground that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the registration of F.I.R.
are that the respondent No. 2 - informant had purchased
5000 sq.mtr fabric coated plastic paper for an amount of
Rs.3,26,332/- from the applicant for Farm Pond. However, the
52 criappln-2871.2021.odt
rain water could not be accumulated in the said Farm Pond
even after it is covered by the said plastic paper due to
extensive leakage. Similarly, the cousin brothers of the
husband of respondent No. 2 namely Pawan Ashok Erande
and Prashant Ashok Erande had also purchased the said
fabric coated plastic paper of 3364 sq. mtrs. from the
applicant company for an amount of Rs. 3,24,000/-.
However, result was also the same. Consequently the
complaint came to be lodged against the applicant Company
for having committed offence of cheating.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned
Counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the parties have
arrived at amicable settlement and the applicant Company
has agreed to repay the entire amount of consideration paid
by respondent No. 2 and also by the cousin brothers of her
husband as referred above. Learned Counsel for respondent
No.2 submits that the applicant - accused has paid the entire
amount of consideration to respondent No. 2 so also to the
cousin brothers of the husband of respondent No. 2 namely
Pawan Ashok Erande and Prashant Ashok Erande.
Respondent No.2 has also fled consent affdavit to that effect
alongwith the said cousin brothers of her husband namely
Pawan Ashok Erande and Prashant Ashok Erande.
52 criappln-2871.2021.odt
5. Learned A.P.P. submits that as per the report
submitted by Investigating Offcer, there are no antecedents.
Learned A.P.P. however submitted that this Court (Coram :
S.S. Shinde and Mangesh S. Patil, JJ.) by an order dated
14.11.2017 in Criminal Application No. 6191 of 2017 has
rejected the application fled by the present applicant -
accused seeking quashing of F.I.R. Learned Counsel
appearing for the applicants, however, submits that the said
order came to be passed on merits and at present the parties
have arrived at amicable settlement and accordingly the
applicant Company is seeking quashing of F.I.R. on the basis
of settlement arrived at between them.
6. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court in
para 48 has quoted para 21 of the judgment of the fve-Judge
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769 . The
fve-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in
para 21 of the judgment, has framed the guidelines for
quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground of
settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh is
reproduced by the Supreme Court in para 48 of the judgment
in Gian Singh. Clause 21(c) which is relevant for the present
52 criappln-2871.2021.odt
discussion reads as under :
"21. ..... (c) Cases of dispute between old
partners or business concerns with dealings
over a long period which are predominantly civil
and are given or acquire a criminal dimension
but the parties are essentially seeking a
redressal of their fnancial or commercial
claim".
7. In para No.61 of the case Gian Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus:
the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
different from the power given to a criminal court
for compounding the offences under Section 320
of the Code. 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. : (1) to secure the ends of justice,
or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised
where the offender and the victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can
52 criappln-2871.2021.odt
be prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fttingly
quashed even though the victim or victim's family
and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender
in relation to the offences under special statutes
like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in
that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. 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 the criminal case would put
52 criappln-2871.2021.odt
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. 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 the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
the 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."
8. In the instant case the allegations made in the
complaint are predominantly of civil nature and this is
particular matter between the applicant Company and
respondent No. 2 and cousin brothers of her husband namely
Pawan Ashok Erande and Prashant Ashok Erande. There are
complaints about the supply of defective fabric coating plastic
paper used for Farm Pond. Since the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties and in view of the
instructions received by learned A.P.P. from the Investigating
Offcer that there are no antecedents so far as the applicant
52 criappln-2871.2021.odt
Company is concerned and in view of the ratio laid down by
the Supreme Court in the above-cited case, we are inclined to
quash the F.I.R. on the basis of settlement. The parties have
arrived at amicable settlement voluntarily. Respondent No.2
and the cousin brothers of her husband have received entire
amount of consideration. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
i) Criminal Application is hereby allowed in terms
of prayer clause "B".
ii) Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V.K. JADHAV, J.)
VD_Dhirde
