Bombay High Court
Atithi Patel And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 June, 2025
Author: N.R.Borkar
Bench: M. S. Karnik, N. R. Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:25414-DB
903-APL-165-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2019
1. Atithi Patel
2. Hiren Patel
3. Ariisto Shelters Private Limited ...Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Sion Police Station
3. Economic Offences Wing, Unit - 3,
Mumbai
4. Shailesh Nimkar
5. Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents
....
Mr. Abad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bhomesh Bellam,
a/w Mr. Samit Shukla a/w Mr. Mustafa Nulwala i/b Trilegal,
Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr. Fahad Panthaki, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
API. Anand Bagade Unit 5, E.O.W., Mumbai is present.
....
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
N. R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 20th JUNE, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER N.R.BORKAR J.)
1. This application under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to quash the First
Information Report No.08 of 2018 dated 01.02.2018
registered at Sion Police Station, Mumbai, (subsequently,
Pramod Lakare 1 of 8
903-APL-165-2019.doc
transferred to Economic Offences Wing and registered as
EOW C.R. No. 8 of 2018) for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The factual matrix of the present application is as
follows:
a. In 2011, the Applicant No. 3 a company
incorporated under the Provisions of Companies
Act was in the process of undertaking a Slum
Rehabilitation Project in respect of a land
admeasuring 1,56,640.90 sq. mtrs. bearing CTS
No. 619/A, 619/B, 619/C of Village Mahul, Taluka
Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District, Chembur, M
(East) Ward, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as
the 'said project'), which was in immediate
proximity of Bhabha Automic Centre. With
respect to the said project as a slum project the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority ('SRA') issued a
Letter of Intent ('LOI') in favour of Applicant no. 3
on 31.03.2011 and revised the same on
16.06.2012. Pursuant to the said LOI, the
Applicant no. 3 became entitled to Transferable
Development Rights (for short 'TDR') arising out
of the development of the said project.
b. In 2013, one Mr. Sandeep Runwal, the
promoter of Respondent no.5/complainant
Company approached Applicant No. 3 with a
request to purchase the TDR from them. After
negotiation, they entered into Agreement dated
Pramod Lakare 2 of 8
903-APL-165-2019.doc
12.04.2013, whereby the Respondent
No.5/Complainant Company agreed to purchase
a total of 5000 sq. mtrs. equivalent to 53820 sq.
ft. of TDR from Applicant No.3 at Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand Only) per sq.ft. The total
consideration was Rs.10,76,40,000/- (Rupees Ten
Crore Seventy-Six Lac Forty Thousand Only).
Accordingly, in April 2013, Respondent
no.5/Complainant Company made a part
payment of Rs.5,38,20,000/-(Rupees Five Crores
Thirty-Eight Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) to
Applicant No.3 as an advance payment towards
the purchase of the said TDR.
c. As per the said agreement, Applicant
No.3, inter alia, had agreed to deliver the said
TDR within a period of 4 months from the date of
execution of the said Agreement i.e. by August
11, 2013 to Respondent No.5/Complainant
Company to enable them to utilize the said TDR
in the projects of the Runwal Group.
D. In October 2013 on the basis of order
passed by this Court in certain writ petitions the
State Government issued directions to not grant
permission for construction of residential
projects in the periphery of Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre (BARC) and Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL)
installations, citing security concerns. The
project of the applicant No.3, therefore got
Pramod Lakare 3 of 8
903-APL-165-2019.doc
stalled. The applicant No. 3 therefore failed to
hand over the said TDR to the Respondent
No.5/Complainant Company within the specified
time. This made the respondent no. 5 to lodge
the report, on the basis of which aforesaid crime
came to the registered.
E. The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the
directors of applicant No.3.
3. The quashing of the FIR is sought on the ground that
there has been an amicable settlement between the
parties and in view of the said settlement the Respondent
No. 5/Complainant Company is no longer desirous of
prosecuting the crime in question.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the Applicants and
Respondent No.5 jointly submit that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and in terms of consent
terms the applicant No. 3 has paid amount of
Rs.21,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Crore Only) to the
Respondent No.5/Complainant Company, vide pay Order
no. 000239 dated 12.03.2025 through the HDFC Bank,
Goregaon West Branch, Mumbai. The learned senior
counsel for the applicants submits that dispute between
the parties was purely commercial dispute. It is submitted
that no purpose would be served by keeping the
Pramod Lakare 4 of 8
903-APL-165-2019.doc
prosecution alive, in view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties.
5. The Respondent No. 5, through it's authorised
representative has filed consent affidavit along with copy
of consent terms dated 19.04.2025. The authorised
representative of Respondent No. 5/Complainant Company
and the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are present in the Court.
They are identified by their respective advocates. They
confirm about the settlement arrived at between them as
well as the contents of the Consent Terms dated
19.04.2025, wherein it is agreed that upon receipt of the
settlement amount, both the parties shall forthwith
withdraw the respective cases/complaints against each
other and shall have no claim against each other.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Narinder Singh and
ors. vs. State of Punjab and anr. has held:
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up
and lay down the following principles by which the
High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties
and exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code while accepting the settlement and quashing
the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement
Pramod Lakare 5 of 8
903-APL-165-2019.doc
with direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the
Code is to be distinguished from the power which
lies in the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section
482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power
to quash the criminal proceedings even in those
cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between
themselves. However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement
and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases
would be to secure:
(I) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form
an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on
society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been
Pramod Lakare 6 of 8
903-APL-165-2019.doc
committed under special statute like the Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity are
not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes should be quashed
when the parties have resolved their entire disputes
among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is
to examine as to whether the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal cases."
7. The genesis of the crime appears to be a commercial
dispute between the parties, which now they have settled.
In view of the settlement between the parties, the
Respondent No.5/Complainant Company is not going to
support the prosecution case and therefore the possibility
of conviction of the Applicants is remote and bleak.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, in our
view, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Pramod Lakare 7 of 8
903-APL-165-2019.doc
8. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a), subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakh Only.) by the Applicants to 'The Bai
Sakarbai Dinshaw Petit Hospital for Animals' which
learned senior advocate on instructions of the applicants
who are personally present in the Court agreed to pay
within a period of three weeks from today. The receipt of
payment of cost shall be produced with the Registry.
9. The Application is disposed of.
(N. R. BORKAR, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Pramod Lakare 8 of 8
