Allowed

Ramesh Chand Arora and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2018WP/1952/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed a Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 409, 120(B), and 34 IPC. The court held that the dispute regarding share transactions between the parties had been settled via a Deed of Settlement supported by the first informant's affidavit and court appearance, rendering the prosecution u

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed; the FIR bearing C.R. No. 258 of 2017 is quashed and set aside as prayed.

Ramesh Chand Arora and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp.1952.18.30.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1952 OF 2018

¶4

Ramesh Chand Arora & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. V. K.Singh for the Petitioners

¶6

Ms. A. S. Pai, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1-State

¶7

Mr. S. B. Thorat for the Respondent No. 2

¶8

Petitioners present in Court

¶9

Respondent No. 2 present in Court

¶10

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. MONDAY, 11^th JUNE, 2018

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 The above Writ Petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing No. C. R. No. 258 of 2017 registered with the MIDC

¶13

Police Station, Mumbai, on 15^th June 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said FIR has its genesis in the transaction in respect of shares between the Petitioners, who are concerned with M/s. Kumar Share Brokers Ltd.

1/5

SQ Pathan

wp.1952.18.30.doc

(`KSBL' for short) and one M/s. Newtree Trading Securities Pvt. Ltd., of which, the Respondent No. 2 herein i.e. the first informant is the representative. It is required to be noted at this stage that the parties have arrived at a settlement which is reduced into writing by way of the Settlement Deed dated 28^th March 2018, executed before Mr. Rajkumar P. Mohite, Advocate and Notary, Government of India on 17^th April 2018 and bears the registration No. 971/2018. The said Settlement Deed is exhaustive and provides for various terms and conditions and mutual obligations between the parties. Suffice it would be to state that insofar as the present Petition is concerned, clauses (7) and (8) of the said Settlement Deed is material and is reproduced hereunder :

¶19

“7. That the Parties hereto further agree that the party of the First Part hereto undertake to execute all such documents, petitions as may be necessary for getting the Complaint and/or F.I.R and/or Charge sheet filed against the Party of the Second Part quashed/withdrawn and shall also appear before all the Courts, as and when required by the parties of the Second Part. The party of the First Part also agrees not to file any further complaints (Criminal and/or Civil), F.I.R., grievances, Court Complaints, etc. on this or related matter in future or any issue relating to the dispute raised in the F.I.R. Initially bearing No. 258/2017 dated 15.06.2017 registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, and subsequently bearing EOW C.R. No. 54/17 registered at Economic Offences Wing, Unit-V, Mumbai.

2/5

SQ Pathan

wp.1952.18.30.doc

The Parties hereto further agree that the party of the First Part shall withdraw its complaint filed before the M.I.D.C. Police Station and/or E.O.W., Unit-V, Mumbai and that the party of the First Part shall consent, co-operate with the parties of the Second Part, and support the parties of the Second Part in a Criminal Application and/or Writ Petition which shall be filed before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, as and when required by the parties of the Second Part.”

¶25

2 The Respondent No.2 i.e. the first informant has also filed an affidavit dated 5^th June 2018. The said affidavit has been affirmed before Mr. Udai Prakash, Advocate and Notary, Government of India, having his Office at Kharodi Village, Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400 095. In the said affidavit, the factum of the Deed of Settlement having taken place has been referred to in paragraph 2 thereof. Paragraph 3 provides for the Respondent No. 2 giving his no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question. The said paragraph 3 is reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference:

¶26

“3. I hereby give my consent and no objection out of free will and volition, for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 54/17 registered against the Petitioner/Original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 at E.O.W., Unit-V, Mumbai for the offence punishable under section 409 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Earlier F.I.R.

3/5

SQ Pathan

wp.1952.18.30.doc

Bearing C.R. No. 258/2017 dated 15.06.2017 registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station).”

¶32

3 The Respondent No. 2-Sunil Mohan Arya is personally present in Court. He is identified by the learned counsel Mr. Thorat. He is also identified by his Aadhar Card bearing No. 522945419712. When put in the box and queried, he accepts the factum of the settlement having been arrived at between the KSBL and Newtree Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. As a result of which, the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the first informant does not desire to proceed with the FIR in question. In view of the statement recorded of the Petitioner No. 1, it is not necessary to record the statement of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are also personally present in Court.

¶33

4 Having regard to the Deed of Settlement dated 28^th March, 2018, the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the first informant giving his no objection, the statements made by the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner No. 1 when put in the box and queried, the same leads to an irresistible conclusion that the parties have settled the dispute in respect of

¶34

the shares, as a result of which, the Respondent No.2 is not desirous of proceeding with the FIR in question.

4/5

SQ Pathan

wp.1952.18.30.doc

5 Having regard to the judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.¹ and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.² , no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the FIR in question. The transaction between the Company of the Petitioners and the Company of the Respondent No. 2 can be said to be a business transaction and therefore has no societal impact. The above Criminal Writ Petition is, therefore, required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).

¶40

6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the machinery of this Court is utilized for settling the dispute between the parties, the Petitioners to deposit total costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Respondent No. 2 to deposit costs of Rs. 25,000/- with the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund in the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, within six weeks from

¶41

date. Receipts to be obtained and filed in the Registry.

¶42

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶43

2 2014 AIR SCW 2065

¶44

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶45

5/5

¶46

SQ Pathan

Ramesh Chand Arora and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Arora and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Makarand Sajjan Savagaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vimla Anil Kumar Puthran Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sopan S/O Ramnath Kasar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Babubhai Waghela Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Avesh Jilani Kokani and Anr. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Bipin Kamoolkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.