Allowed

Ayub Jalal Bhola and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC30 Nov 2012WP/2490/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, quashed a criminal case filed against petitioners after a partnership dispute led to criminal complaints. Relying on Gian Singh, the Court held that since the dispute was commercial and settled via arbitration consent terms with the complainant agreeing to withdraw the case, continuing proceedings served no purpose. The Court ordered payme

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; petitioners and second respondent to pay Rs.50,000 to Police Welfare Fund and Rs.50,000 to Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority; bail bonds cancelled.

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Notice for final hearing was issued on 18th October 2012. The petitioners have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for quashing the criminal case arising out offences registered at the instance of the second respondent. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners for offence under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2The learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to consent terms filed in Arbitration Petition no.1185 of 2010 filed in this Court. Arbitration Petition was filed by the first petitioner to which other petitioners as well as the

second respondent and his brother are parties. The consent terms record complete settlement of partnership dispute between the parties. By consent, Arbitration Award of the learned Arbitrator was annulled. He invited our attention to clause (16) of the consent terms which record the undertaking of the second respondent and his brother to withdraw the complaint and co-operate with the other parties for dropping the proceedings. Our attention is also invited to the order dated 28th June 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which Arbitration Petition was disposed of in terms of the consent terms. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the charge sheet and submitted that essentially the dispute between the parties was a partnership dispute which led to filing of F.I.R. He placed reliance on the recent decision of the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another [SLP. (CRL) No.8989 dated 24th September 2012]. He submitted that this is a fit case for exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The learned counsel for the second respondent on instructions accepted that there was a settlement in Arbitration Petition in terms of the consent terms and stated that in view of settlement and undertaking of the second respondent that the second respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings. The learned A.P.P opposed the petition by submitting that after carrying out detailed investigation, charge sheet has been filed by the police. She pointed out that charge sheet is filed not only for the offence

punishable under section 420 but for the offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. She invited our attention to the material forming part of the charge sheet and especially the allegation of forgery.

3We have considered the submissions. We have perused the documents forming part of charge sheet and complaint of the second respondent. Perusal of the complaint filed by the second respondent shows that apart from the fact that there was partnership dispute, essentially the dispute between the parties was of commercial nature. It will be necessary to make a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab wherein the Apex Court considered the scope of section 482 of the said Code for quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of the settlement of the dispute. The Apex Court held that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purpose of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or similar transactions. The Apex Court observed that in such cases power under section 482 can be exercised for quashing the proceedings of criminal cases.

“16During the height of disputes between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 to 8 including among the Respondent nos.1 to 8, the parties hereto have made claims, counterclaims, criminal complaints filed criminal case, civil suit etc. Now all the disputes among all the parties have been amicably settled and the concerned parties hereto are in process of withdrawing all the criminal complaints and cases, claims and counterclaims made earlier and are treated as settled. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have undertaken to withdraw or co-operate at all times to withdraw the criminal complaint and case filed against petitioner no.1 and respondent nos.3 to 8 and will endeavour to withdraw the criminal case and co-operate with the other parties to drop the proceedings which are before the various courts at the earliest possible opportunity.”

“2The learned Advocates appearing for the Parties have tendered Consent Terms dated 27th June 2012. They submit that the Consent Terms be taken on record and the Arbitration Petition be disposed of in terms of the

Consent Terms. The Consent Terms are taken on record and marked `X' for identification. The Consent Terms are signed by the petitioner and the respondent nos.1 to 8. The petitioner as well as the respondent nos.1 to 8 are present in Court. They have informed the Court that they have understood the contents of the Consent Terms and have signed the same of their own free will and volition. The Consent Terms are also signed by the Advocate for the Plaintiff, the Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the Advocate for respondent nos.3 to 8. The Arbitration Petition is disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms marked `X'. The Court Receiver stands discharged of the suit property without passing accounts but subject to payment of his costs, charges and expenses. The Court Receiver shall be entitled to deduct the payment required to be made to the Valuer towards the Valuer's fees and also his costs, charges and expenses from the amount already lying with him and hand over the balance amount to the petitioner. The Arbitration Petition is accordingly disposed of.”

6Thus, even this Court acting upon the settlement has disposed of the Arbitration Petition by annulling the Award of the learned Arbitrator. Perusal of the complaint of the second respondent shows that the dispute is essentially of commercial

nature. It is a case having predominantly a civil flavour. The offence alleged is of private nature which does not have any impact on the society at large. In this case the offence is personal in nature. In the circumstances, this is a case where the continuation of criminal proceedings will not serve any purpose.

7At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the first respondent state that as the police machinery has carried out investigation and submitted charge sheet, they are willing to pay costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-. We accept the statement. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the Police Welfare Fund and remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.

ii)The petitioners and the second respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai and a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today.

Ayub Jalal Bhola and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub Jalal Bhola and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Suresh Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Omprakash Zumberlal Boob Vs State of Maharashtra

Omprakash Zumberlal Boob Vs State of Maharashtra

Om Priyadarshani Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kadar Sattar Solanki Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yasin Abbas Malik and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra