Before:- R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 8435-8436 of 2018. D/d. 1.10.2019.
Yusuf Jamir Kazi & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
For the Petitioners :- Ms. Kanika Jain, Rahul Tyagi, Rajeev Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Anirudha Joshi, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
R. Banumathi, J. - We have heard Ms. Kanika Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Anirudha Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.
2. These special leave petitions have been preferred by the petitioners-accused against the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The petitioners-accused and the second respondent-complainant have entered into an Agreement (10.6.2010) for purchase of a flat measuring 653 square meter in Fatama Heights. The case of the second respondent is that he has paid the advance amount for purchase of the said flat but the petitioners-accused have neither parted with the flat nor repaid the amount. On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR No.216/15 was registered at Police Station Sir J.J. Marg, Dist. Mumbai, Maharashtra, under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the petitioners-accused.
3. Earlier the High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners-accused based on the statement made by the parties that the parties have amicably settled the matter and the petitioners-accused have agreed/undertaken to pay the amount by way of several installments. Later, when it was brought to the notice of the High Court that the petitioners-accused have not complied with the undertaking, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners-accused was cancelled by the impugned order dated 16.08.2019. Being aggrieved, the petitioners-accused have preferred these special leave petitions.
4. When the matter came up before this Court for hearing on 11.10.2018, the petitioners-accused have agreed that an amount of Rs. 43,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs) is still payable by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused has submitted that a total sum of Rs. 43,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs) in six installments i.e. on 29.10.2018 Rs. 10,00,000/-, on 29.01.2019 Rs. 16,50,000/-, on 06.05.2019 Rs. 10,00,000/-, on 14.08.2019 Rs. 2,50,000/-, on 19.08.2019 Rs. 1,50,000/-, on 01.10.2019 Rs. 2,50,000/- has been paid to respondent no.2, as undertaken by the petitioners-accused and the said amount according to the parties was the only due amount payable by the petitioners-accused to respondent no.2.
5. In the above circumstances, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the special leave petitions are allowed.
6. In view of above, the petitioners-accused shall remain protected from arrest qua FIR No.216/2015. It is stated that the petitioners-accused have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. , 1973 to quash the said FIR in Criminal Application NO.567/2016. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter, we request the High Court to take note of the fact that an amount of Rs. 43,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs) has been paid by the petitioners-accused, as noted above, and pass appropriate orders as nothing survives for further consideration by this Court.
7. Resultantly the special leave petitions are accordingly disposed of.
