Bombay High Court
Ajay Pratap Singh vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Sadar Ps, Nagpur ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:254-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.995 OF 2023
Ajay Pratap Singh, Aged about 47 years,
Occu. Business, R/o Village Parshiya,
Taluka Bisauli, District Badayu, Uttar
Pradesh.
... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through
P.S.O., Sadar Police Station, Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra, through the
Investigating Officer, Economic
Offences Wing, Nagpur.
3 Arvind Kanahiyyalal Dakaha, age -
47, Occ.- Business, R/o Behind
Gupta Stel Bhandar, Gaddigodam,
Nagpur.
... NON-APPLICANTS.
_____________________________________________________________
Shri R.R. Vyas, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri A.B. Badar, Addl.P.P. for the State.
Shri U.K. Bisen, Advocate for non-applicant no.3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 08.01.2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)
Heard. ADMIT.
2. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of
learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. This is an application seeking to quash the First Information
Report in crime No.217 of 2023 registered with the Sadar Police Station
Nagpur City for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code, on account of mutual settlement.
4. At the instance of the report dated 08.05.2023, the crime
has been registered against the applicant. It is the informant's case that
the applicant gave false assurances to allot a contract in crores of
rupees and in lieu of that time to time received various sum as stated in
the report. At the instance of applicant, informant has disbursed total
sum of Rs.78,70,108/- in the account of the applicant and some other
persons. The informant stated that as the assurances failed, on his
demand the applicant has refunded only Rs.12.50 lakhs and therefore,
the report of breach of trust and cheating.
5. It is the applicant's case that it was a business transaction.
Both have mutually settled the dispute in which the applicant agreed to
return sum of Rs.28 lakhs. In accordance with the settlement,
Memorandum Of Understanding was prepared in between the parties,
which is annexed with the petition. During pendency, the informant has
appeared and expressed his willingness to settle the dispute as regards
to the present applicant only. He has stated that as per the agreement,
he has received sum of Rs.28 lakhs and also received two vehicles (two
wheeler) bearing registration Nos. MH-31/ET-2448 (Royal Enfield)
and MH-31/DP-4698 (Hero Honda Splender). The informant has filed
an affidavit stating that he has received physical possession of both
vehicles out of which Honda Splender vehicle stands in his name and
the another (Bullet) stands in the name of applicant's wife. The
informant stated that as per the settlement he has no objection to quash
the proceedings subject to the applicant transferring two wheeler
(Bullet) in his name.
6. The informant has filed an affidavit-in-reply stating about
the settlement and his no objection. The informant is present before the
us, who is identified by his Counsel Shri Bisen. The informant accepted
the settlement and gave no objection to quash the criminal proceeding
provided that the applicant be directed to expeditious transfer the
vehicle (Bullet). The informant also stated that concern FIR may be
quashed but his civil right to recover the sum from other persons may
be protected.
7. It is apparent that it was a private transaction between the
parties. They have mutually settled the dispute by entering into
Memorandum Of Understanding. With the consent of both, the terms of
settlement were fixed under which the applicant has already returned
sum of Rs.28 lakhs. The applicant has also returned both vehicles (two
wheeler) to the informant. As regards to transfer of one of the vehicle
(Bullet), he has already completed all the formalities and registration
certificate would be issued soon.
8. The applicant undertakes to this Court that if any difficulty
arose about transferred of vehicle he would clear and see that vehicle
would be transfer in the name of the informant as agreed. We accept
his statements as undertaking given to this Court. We have brought to
the notice that due to private dispute, the Police are required to
investigate the matter and as such government machinery was used. At
this juncture, learned Counsel Shri Vyas appearing for the applicant
submits that the applicant would deposit sum of Rs.50,000/- within
two days towards costs.
9. The offence cannot be termed as heinous or anti social. It
was a private transaction between two persons. Now the matter is
settled and therefore, we have no hesitation to exercise our inherent
powers. In view of the above, following order :
(a) The Application is allowed.
(b) We hereby quash and set aside the First Information Report
in crime No.217 of 2023 registered with the Sadar Police Station
Nagpur City for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code.
(c) The applicant shall deposit costs of Rs.50,000/- within two
days with Charitable Institution namely Nagpur Association for the
Rehabilitation of Children and Adults With Orthopedic And Other
Disabilities.
10. We made it clear that the informant is at liberty to resort
civil remedy against others, if he desire so.
11. Place the matter on 11.01.2024, for noting compliance,
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/01/2024 11:20:22
