Allowed

Chandrakant Kanhaialal Chordiya and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Aug 2016WP/231/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the First Information Report under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC as the dispute had a civil flavour and had been resolved by a consent decree in the underlying civil suit, applying the principle from Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

First Information Report No. 100/2015 quashed and set aside on terms that the second Respondent pays a donation of Rs. 50,000/- to Grace Foundation within one month.

Chandrakant Kanhaialal Chordiya and Ors. Vs the State of… — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

3.wp.231.16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 231 OF 2016

¶4

Chandrakant Kanhaialal Chordiya & Ors. V/s.	… Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. *WITH*	… Respondents

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 530 OF 2016

¶6

Ashok Malipachand Jain V/s.	… Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	… Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prashant M. Patil for Petitioner in WP. No. 231/2016. Mr. Manoj Mohite for Petitioner in WP No. 530/2016 i/b. Purshottam G. Chavan.

¶8

Mr. P. G. Sarda for Respondent No. 2 in both the Petitions. Smt. S. V. Sonawane, APP for State in both W.P.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. OKA & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 30 AUGUST, 2016.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Rule.

¶13

Learned APP waives service for the 1^st Respondent - State

¶14

of Maharashtra, in both the matters. The learned APP also waives

¶15

service for 3^rd Respondent in Criminal Writ Petition No. 530 of 2016.

¶16

Habeeb 1/5

¶17

3.wp.231.16.odt

¶18

The learned counsel representing the 2^nd Respondent (1^st informant) waives service in both petitions. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶19

In both the petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the prayer is for quashing the First Information Report No. 100/2015, registered with Dehu Road Police Station for the offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 33, 34, 35 (A) of the Bombay Money-lenders Act and under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

¶20

It appears that the civil suit was filed by the 1^st petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 231 of 2016 to which the 2^nd Respondent (1^st informant) is the 5^th Defendant. In the said Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 812 of 2015 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune, there was a counter claim filed. The parties to the suit filed consent terms vide Exh. 73 on 4^th December 2015. The learned Civil Judge proceeded to pass a decree in terms

¶21

Habeeb 2/5

¶22

3.wp.231.16.odt

¶23

of the consent terms on the very day. In the consent terms, there is

¶24

clause that the plaintiff therein will apply for quashing the First Information Report and the 5^th Defendant therein (1^st Informant) will render necessary assistant to him. The prayer in these two petitions is for quashing for First Information Report on the ground of settlement.

¶25

We are perused the First Information Report. The dispute subject matter of the First Information Report has overwhelmingly a civil flavour and it appears to be a dispute over a property transaction. As evidence by the consent decree passed by the Civil Court the dispute has been resolved. Therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr¹ will squarely apply to the case. In fact, there is an affidavit of support filed by the 2^nd Respondent accepting that there is complete settlement. The learned APP pointed out that on the basis of First Information Report the police have carried out investigation for a period of approximately 1 year. The learned

¶26

1 (2012)10 SCC 303

¶27

Habeeb

¶28

3.wp.231.16.odt

¶29

counsel appearing for 2^nd Respondent states that the property subject matter of the dispute is to be used for construction of a church and a school. However, on instruction, he states that the 2^nd Respondent/1^st informant will pay a donation of Rs.50,000/- to Grace Foundation, an organization at pune. We accept the said statement.

¶30

Accordingly, we disposed of both the petitions by passing

¶31

following order.

¶32

1. The First Information Report No. 100/2015 dated 22^nd April 2015 registered with Dehu Road Police Station, Pune is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶33

1. We accept the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd Respondent that the said Respondent will pay donation of Rs. 50,000/- to the said Grace Foundation. Affidavit of compliance shall be filed by the 2^nd Respondent by producing the copy of a receipt

¶34

Habeeb 4/5

¶35

3.wp.231.16.odt

¶36

issued by the Grace Foundation within a period of one month from today. Rule is made absolute on above terms

¶37

3 . For reporting compliance, the petition shall be listed under the caption of “Direction” on 7 th October 2016.

¶38

(A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶39

Habeeb 5/5

Chandrakant Kanhaialal Chordiya and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Kanhaialal Chordiya and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Dr Bharti Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Kalicharan Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhaskar Dharma Koli and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Indira Mavji Shethia and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Faruk Vali Mohamed Mansuri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Atmaram Gharat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.