Allowed

Sasmita Investments Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2019APL/696/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash an FIR for cheating and criminal conspiracy filed by the State. Relying on Narinder Singh, the Court held that the dispute was settled and the complainant was compensated. The FIR was quashed on the condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 10,000 to a charitable organization.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 70 of 2018 quashed and set aside subject to petitioner paying Rs. 10,000 to 'MAHAROGI SEWA SAMITI' and producing the receipt.

Sasmita Investments Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/4 40 WP 696-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.696 OF 2019

¶3

Sasmita Investments Limited .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondents

¶4

Mr. Amit Ghag i/b M/s.Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the applicant. Mr.Deepak Thakare, P.P with A.D. Kamkhedkar, APP for the State.

¶5

Mr.R.R. Shah for respondent no.2.

¶6

CORAM: SHRI RANJIT MORE & SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.

¶7

DATED : 9^th JULY 2019

¶8

P.C:-

¶9

1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned APP for the State.

¶10

2 Petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR No.70 of 2018 registered at the instance of respondent no.2 with Malabar Hill Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120(B) and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

3 Pending investigation, parties have settled their dispute amicably and they have no objection for quashing the

¶12

Tilak

¶13

2/4 40 WP 696-19.doc

¶14

subject FIR by consent. Respondent no.2 has accordingly filed an affidavit dated 12^th June 2019. In paragraph no.4, he has given no objection to quash the subject FIR out of free will and without there being any pressure or coercion. Respondent no.2 is personally present in the Court.

¶15

4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab¹ has observed thus :-

¶16

“14. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non-compoundable case be quashed when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines :

¶17

“Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceedings having regard to the facts that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court.”

¶18

1 [2014 AIRSCW 2065]

¶19

Tilak

¶20

3/4 40 WP 696-19.doc

¶21

In the light of the aforesaid observations we have noted that the two rival parties have amicably settled dispute between them and buried the hatchet, and since the complainant has been adequately compensated by the petitioner and has also received the entire compensation, we are of the opinion that the FIR is liable to be quashed in exercise of our inherent powers to secure the ends of justice.

¶22

5 In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances and especially in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for putting into motion the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes.

¶23

6 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the subject FIR No.70 of 2018 is quashed and set aside subject to the petitioner paying cost of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten thousand only ], which shall be paid to “Anandwan” Warora , [payable in favour of “MAHAROGI SEWA SAMITI”], a non governmental organization espousing the cause of socially disadvantaged people by enhancing their livelihood capabilities through self- Tilak

¶24

4/4 40 WP 696-19.doc

¶25

discovery and empowering them to contribute to the society. For the quashment to take effect, the petitioner shall pay the said cost and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court a nd order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est.

¶26

Subject to the above, Criminal Application stands

¶27

disposed of.

¶28

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.)

¶29

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶30

Tilak

Sasmita Investments Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasmita Investments Limited 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

Bipin Kantilal Joshi Vs Shailesh Chandarana and Anr.

Ramesh Tatyasaheb Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Hazi Abdul Mannan Sheikh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mehmood Anwar Tanwar Husain Vs the Sr. Police Inspectr and Ors.

Faiyaz Abdul Razak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pandhari S/O Rushi Meshram and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.