Allowed

Adnan Abu Athar Bakshi and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC25 Apr 2013APPLN/883/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an FIR and consequential order in a criminal proceeding initiated due to a civil dispute over unpaid Hajj tour expenses. The court allowed the application on consensual compromise terms.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report registered with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, bearing M-Case No.18/2012, and the order dated 29th October, 2012 in M.A. No.1608, are quashed.

Adnan Abu Athar Bakshi and Others Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra883.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.883 OF 2013

¶6

1) Adnan Abu Athar Bakshi,
 Aged-27 years, Occu:Business,
 Residing at Ground Floor,
 Flat No.4, Hanser Villa,
 Club Back Road, YMCA,

¶7

 Agripada, Mumbai-400 008,

¶8

2) Shayan Hasan Chariyari, Aged-19 years, Occu:Business,

¶9

3) Mrs. Gazala Hasan Chariyari, Aged-44 years, Occu:Business,

¶10

 Applicant Nos.2 and 3 both
 Residing at A-22/401,
 At Makkah Co-Op. Housing
 Society, Millat Nagar,
 Andheri, Mumbai-400053.

¶11

...APPLICANTS

¶12

 VERSUS

¶13

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶14

 [At the instance of City
 Chowk Police Station,
 Aurangabad, Magistrate Case
 No.18/2012],

¶15

2) Mir Irshad Ali Mir Mahmood Ali,
 An Adult, Occu:Business,
 Having its office at Madina
 Market, Shop No.23-24,
 Opp. Shagunj Bus-Stand,
 Aurangabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

cra883.13

¶18

¶19

...

¶20

 Shri.Tauseef Sayyad Advocate for Applicants.
 Shri.S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for Respondent
 No.1.
 Shri.A.T. Patel Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶21

...

¶22

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ.

¶23

 DATE : 25TH APRIL, 2013

¶24

JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] :

¶25

1. Heard finally, by consent of the learned

¶26

counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶27

2.The Application is moved for final

¶28

disposal by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

parties, as the parties have settled the dispute
amicably. Consent Terms are filed on record. Both

¶30

the parties are before the Court and are
identified by their respective counsel. Consent

¶31

Terms and Verification made by the parties,

¶32

namely, Adnan Abu Athar Bakshi (Applicant No.1)
and Mir Irshad Ali Mir Mahammad Ali (Respondent

¶33

cra883.13

¶34

¶35

No.2), is taken on record and marked as "X" for
identification.

¶36

3.It is contended by the Applicants that

¶37

Applicant No.3 is a Managing Director of a Tours
and Travels Company, namely, "Sky Ship
International Pvt. Ltd."(For short "said

¶38

company"). An agreement was executed between
every Hajji and the said Company wherein the terms

¶39

and conditions were incorporated to avoid any
complications to Hajjis during their Hajj tour. It
is submitted by the Applicants that for the year

¶40

2010 they were allotted a quota of 206 Hajjis by
the External Affairs Ministry, Government of
India. The estimated cost that year for the Hajj
package tour was Rs.1.60 Lacs. For the year 2010

¶41

Hajj tour, Respondent No.2 -Mir Irshad Ali,
invited the Applicants at Aurangabad and arranged
a programme. In the said programme the Respondent

¶42

No.2 introduced the said Company of Applicant No.3
as one of the best Hajj Tour Operators of India.

¶43

cra883.13

¶44

¶45

In the year 2011, a quota of 227 Hajjis was
allotted to the said Company by the Central
Government. The Applicants submit that over a
period from 7th July, 2011 to 29th October 2011, a
total amount of Rs.1.46 Crores only was remitted

¶46

by Respondent No.2 towards the cost of 100
intending Hajjis for the Hajj Tour, 2011, out of
the total amount of Rs.1.64 Crores. After the
return of Respondent No.2 from the Hajj tour, the
Applicant No.3 has been calling up Respondent No.2
since October, 2011 for claiming balance amount of
Rs.18 Lacs but Respondent No.2, on one pretext or

¶47

the other, kept on avoiding to make the balance
payment of Rs.18 Lacs which was due.

¶48

4.A complaint was filed by Respondent No.2

¶49

in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 468, 383 and 406 of the Indian Penal

¶50

Code. On 29th October, 2012 the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad passed an

¶51

cra883.13

¶52

¶53

order in M.A. No.1608 of 2012, under Section

¶54

156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶55

Consequent to the said order, the police

¶56

registered complaint against the Applicants.

¶57

5.The learned counsel appearing for the
Applicants submits that considering the issues
raised in the Application, the Application was

¶58

admitted and interim relief was granted.

¶59

6.We find from the material placed on
record and submissions advanced before us, that

¶60

the complaint was the out-come of money
transactions between the parties. The complaint
was filed out of civil dispute between the parties
and breach of contract.

¶61

7.The learned counsel appearing for the

¶62

contesting parties submit that for carrying out

¶63

good relations, the parties have amicably settled
the matter. They want to put an end to the dispute

¶64

cra883.13

¶65

¶66

finally. The parties present in the Court,
expressed their desire to settle the matter
finally.

¶67

Respondent- State submits that some of the
offences registered against the Applicants are non
compoundable. But in the facts and circumstances
and considering the Consent Terms filed on record,
we find that the request made by the parties to
quash and set aside the First Information Report
registered with City Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad, bearing M-Case No.18/2012, deserves
consideration. Hence Order:

¶68

allowed.

¶69

(ii) The First Information Report
registered with City Chowk Police
Station, Aurangabad, bearing M-case

¶70

cra883.13

¶71

No.18/2012 on the basis of order
dated 29th October, 2012 passed by
16th Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Aurangabad, in M.A. No.1608
of 2012, is quashed and set aside.

¶72

(iii) Rule is made absolute on the
terms indicated above.

¶73

[A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶74

asb/APR13

Adnan Abu Athar Bakshi and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adnan Abu Athar Bakshi and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hashmi Syed Majid Ali Syed Akbar Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sachin Digambar Thalkari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip Narsingrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhujangrao Shripati Vetal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rambhau Fakira Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kiran Raosaheb Khile and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another