Allowed

Subodh Subash Runwal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2021APL/239/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed an application to quash an FIR and summons arising from a dispute over apartment flats, citing a commercial nature of the dispute and a voluntary settlement. The court held that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process but imposed Rs. 3,00,000 costs on applicants for deposit with the Children's Aid Society.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.7 of 2019 and summons dated 08th January 2019 (Nos. 281/2019 and 282/2019) set aside, subject to deposition of Rs.3,00,000/- in Children's Aid Society.

Subodh Subash Runwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Laxmikant Digitally signed by Laxmikant G. G. Chandan Chandan Date: 2021.02.2215:05:44 +0530

¶2

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.239 OF 2019

¶5

1]Subodh Subash Runwal ]
Age – 43 years ]
Having his registered office at ]
Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5th Floor,]
Off Eastern Expressway Highway]
Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal]
Mumbai – 400022.]
]
2]Ms. Snehal Subodh Runwal]
Age – 42 years ]
Having his registered office at ]
Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5th Floor,]
Off Eastern Expressway Highway]
Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal]
Mumbai – 400022.]
]
3]Ms. Lucy Roy Choudhury]
Age – 50 years ]
Having his registered office at ]
Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5th Floor,]
Off Eastern Expressway Highway]
Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal]
Mumbai – 400022.]
]
4]Rameh P Lunkad ]
Age – 58 years ]
Having his registered office at ]
Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5th Floor,]
Off Eastern Expressway Highway]
Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal]
Mumbai – 400022.]
]
5]A. V. Rajan]
Age – 59 years ]
Having his registered office at ]
Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5th Floor,]
Off Eastern Expressway Highway]
Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal]
Mumbai – 400022.]

¶6

1 of 12

¶7

lgc

¶8

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶9

]
6]Umesh Moreshware Barve]
Age – 57 years ]
Having his registered office at ]
Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5th Floor,]
Off Eastern Expressway Highway]
Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal]
Mumbai – 400022.]….. Applicants.

¶10

Versus

¶11

1]The State of Maharashtra ]
at the instance of Bhandup]
Police Station, in FIR No.07/2019]
]
2]Mangesh Suresh More ]
Age 50 Years]
Residing at House No.9001, ]
Building No.230,]
Kannamwar Nagar – 1, Vikhroli (East), ]
Mumbai – 400 083]….. Respondents.

¶12

ALONG WITH CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1143 OF 2020 (For Intervention)

¶13

IN

¶14

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.239 OF 2019

¶15

Neeraj Rameshwar Jain]
Age 63 years]
Residing at Flat No.A/702, The Willows,]
Near Comfort Zone, Baner Balewadi Road]
Pune – 411 045.]….. Intervener/Applicant

¶16

In the matter between

¶17

1]Subodh Subash Runwal ]
Age – 43 years ]
Having his registered office at ]
Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5th Floor,]
Off Eastern Expressway Highway]
Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal]
Mumbai – 400022.]
]

¶18

2 of 12

¶19

lgc

¶20

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶21

`2]`	`Ms. Snehal Subodh Runwal`	`]`
	`Age – 42 years`	`]`
	`Having his registered office at` `Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5`^th`Floor,` `Off Eastern Expressway Highway` `Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal` `Mumbai – 400022.`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
`3]`	`Ms. Lucy Roy Choudhury` `Age – 50 years`	`]` `]`
	`Having his registered office at` `Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5`^th`Floor,` `Off Eastern Expressway Highway`	`]` `]` `]`
	`Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal` `Mumbai – 400022.`	`]` `]`
`4]`	`Rameh P Lunkad`	`]` `]`
	`Age – 58 years`	`]`
	`Having his registered office at` `Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5`^th`Floor,` `Off Eastern Expressway Highway` `Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal` `Mumbai – 400022.`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
`5]`	`A. V. Rajan` `Age – 59 years` `Having his registered office at`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
	`Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5`^th`Floor,` `Off Eastern Expressway Highway` `Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal` `Mumbai – 400022.`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
`6]`	`Umesh Moreshware Barve`	`]`
	`Age – 57 years` `Having his registered office at`	`]` `]`
	`Runwal & Omkar E-Square, 5`^th`Floor,` `Off Eastern Expressway Highway` `Opposite Sion Chunnabhatti Signal` `Mumbai – 400022.`	`]` `]` `]` `]…`	`.. Applicants.`
	`Versus`
`1]` `lgc`	`The State of Maharashtra` `at the instance of Bhandup`	`]` `]`

¶22

3 of 12

¶23

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶24

Police Station, in FIR No.07/2019]
]
2]Mangesh Suresh More ]
Age 50 Years]
Residing at House No.9001, ]
Building No.230,]
Kannamwar Nagar – 1, Vikhroli (East), ]
Mumbai – 400 083]….. Respondents.

¶25

Mr. Mihir Gheewala a/w Farhad Panthaki, Mr. Santosh Pawar and Mr. Aditya
Mehta i/by Mr. Santosh Pawar for the Applicant in Criminal Application
No.239 of 2019.

¶26

Mr. Yuvraj D Patil for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S R Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
None for the Applicant in Criminal IA No.1143 of 2020.

¶27

Mr. P D Wani, Police Inspector, now attached to Mulund Police Station was
present.

¶28

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
MANISH PITALE, JJ
Reserved on :17th FEBRUARY 2021
Pronounced on:22nd FEBRUARY 2021

¶29

JUDGMENT : (PER S S SHINDE, J.)

¶30

1Rule in Criminal Application No.239 of 2019. Rule made

¶31

returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing
for the parties.

¶32

2The Criminal Application No.239 of 2019 has been filed by the
Applicants for the following substantial reliefs :-

¶33

a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the said FIR being 7 of 2019 filed against the Applicants abovenamed by the Bhandup Police Station;

¶34

b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set

¶35

4 of 12

¶36

lgc

¶37

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶38

aside the said Summons being summons dated 08th
January 2019 bearing nos. 281/2019 and 282/2019
addressed by Respondent No.1 calling upon, inter alia,
the Applicants herein to remain present at the police
station at Bhandup with all the necessary documents.”

¶39

3It is submitted that in the year 2010 Respondent No.2 approaches
Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing a flat in Runwal Greens Project.
Respondent No.2 booked the flat. Allotment letter for Flat No.3501 is handed
over by the company to Respondent No.2. Thereafter on 31/07/2012
Agreement for Sale has been executed between the Respondent No.2 and the
Company. On 08/07/2012 the 2nd Respondent has been informed about the
changes in DCR Regulation, however, the Respondent No.2 objected same by
addressing a letter dated 27/07/2015. The Company replied to the said letter.
Thereafter Respondent No.2 filed a Civil Suit being Suit No.2355 of 2015
before the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay and also taken out a Notice of
Motion No.2355 of 2015 wherein an order came to be passed directing the
Company not to create third party rights. On 03/02/2017 the Company
informs Respondent No.2 that the flat is ready for fit out. Thereafter certain
litigation has taken place between the Respondent No.2 and the Company.
On03/02/2017 Respondent No.2 filed a complaint with the Bhandup Police
Station and, on the basis of said compromise, FIR came to be registered against
the Applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 7(i)(ii) and 8 of
Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act.

¶40

5 of 12

¶41

lgc

¶42

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶43

4It is submitted that the Applicants and Respondent No.2 have
decided to settle the dispute amicably and have arrived at out of court
settlement and entered into Consent Terms dated 16/08/2019. It is further
submitted that in view of the said Consent Terms, the 2nd Respondent does not
wish to pursue any civil and/or criminal proceedings and the 2nd Respondent
has no more grievances against the Applicants. It is submitted that the
Applicants have filed the present Criminal Application No.239 of 2019 for
quashing the impugned FIR and the summons dated 08/01/2019 bearing
Nos.281/2019 and 282/2019 issued by Respondent No.1 against the
Applicants.

¶44

5This matter was on board on 17/02/2021. The 2nd Respondent
was present. When we interacted with the 2nd Respondent, he stated that it is
his voluntary act to enter into the settlement and execute the Consent Terms
without any coercion and pressure. He further stated that he does not wish to
continue with the proceedings filed against the Applicants and has no objection
to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

¶45

6The 2nd Respondent has filed his affidavit dated 19/08/2019 in the
Criminal Application No.239 of 2019 which is annexed to the Paper Book. In
paragraphs 1 to 7 of the said Affidavit, the 2nd Respondent has stated thus :-

¶46

6 of 12

¶47

lgc

¶48

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶49

“1 I say that I have filed an FIR being LAC 7 of 2019 with Bhandup Police Station for the offences under Section 3, 4, 7(i)(ii) and 8 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act against the Applicants herein. I say that this matter has now been transferred to Mulund Police Station.

¶50

2 I say that the Respondent No.1, 2, 5 and 6 have filed application for Anticipatory Bail before the Hon’ble Sessions Court being ABA No.254 of 2019 and ABA No.1243 of 2019.

¶51

3) I say that after due deliberations, discussions and negotiations between myself and the Applicants herein, we have decided to mutually and amicably settle our disputes, differences and grievances. I say that the Applicants and I have arrived at an out of court settlement and have entered into consent terms dated 16^th August, 2019. I now intend to go on with my life and keep this chapter behind me. The construction of the project has now been completed and almost all the buyers have received occupation of their flats. I say that I have now received possession of my flat which is free from all encumbrances.

¶52

4) I say that I have filed Consent Terms between myself and Runwal Homes Private Limited (Propel Developers Private Limited) before the Hon’ble City Civil Court in Suit No.2355 of 2015 on 16^th August, 2019. In light of the Consent Terms between myself and the Applicants herein being filed before the Hon’ble City Civil Court, I

¶53

7 of 12

¶54

lgc

¶55

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶56

do not wish to pursue any Civil and/or criminal
proceedings and I have no more grievances against the
Applicants.

¶57

5) I say that pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, I hold no grievances, grudges, or ill-will towards the Applicants herein. I say that I hereby withdraw all my allegations and charges against the Applicants herein which was made by me in C.R. No.7 of 2019 registered with Bhandup Police Station.

¶58

6) I say that I have no desire to pursue any prosecution against the Applicants herein. I further submits that I withdraw all allegations/complaints levelled against the Applicants herein before all forums and not limited to the FIR registered with Bhandup Police Station.

¶59

7) I submit that I am making this Affidavit voluntarily, without any force or coercion and give my consent for the quashing of the C.R. being 7 of 2019 registered with Bhandup Police Station and thus have no objection if the prayers as prayed in the Petition are allowed.

¶60

7The learned counsel for both the parties submits that both the
parties have voluntarily agreed to settle the disputes and differences between
them, and there is no coercion, undue influence or force upon them for
arriving at the settlement.

¶61

8 of 12

¶62

lgc

¶63

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶64

8In view of settlement arrived at between the parties, no fruitful
purpose will be served by continuing the further investigation in the impugned
FIR No.7 of 2019 filed by Respondent No.2 against the Applicants with
Bhandup Police Station.

¶65

9We have called for the status report in this Criminal Application
No. 239 of 2019. When the matter was on board for hearing on 17/02/2021,
the learned APP appearing for Respondent/State has tendered across the bar,
status report dated 17/02/2021 sent by the Police Inspector Bhandup Police
Station. The learned APP on instructions submitted that there are no
antecedents against the Applicants.

¶66

10The Supreme Court in the case ofGiansingh v. State of Punjab
and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence arising out
of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolves their entire
dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and
the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

¶67

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶68

9 of 12

¶69

lgc

¶70

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶71

the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. It is
further held that, as inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in
such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court.

¶72

11In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly
clear that Respondent No.2 is not going to support the allegations made
against the Applicants in the impugned FIR, and further continuation of
investigation in impugned FIR would tantamount to the abuse of the process of
the Law/Court. Since the first informant i.e. the 2nd Respondent is not going to
support the allegations in the FIR, the chances of conviction of the accused
would be remote and bleak. On overall consideration, we found that the
dispute is predominantly of civil nature.

¶73

12It is pertinent to note at this stage that though the parties have
resolved/settled their disputes between them and approached this Court for
quashing of the FIR lodged by the 2nd Respondent against the Applicants, we
deem it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
only) on the Applicants. Accordingly we direct the Applicants to deposit costs

¶74

10 of 12

¶75

lgc

¶76

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶77

of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) within two weeks from today with
the Children’s Aid Society, Mumbai, who in turn transfer the said costs for
betterment of the children to the New & Additional Children’s Home,
Mankhurd, Mumbai.

¶78

13For the reasons stated herein above, the Criminal Application
No.239 of 2019 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) subject to
depositing Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) by the Applicants within
two weeks from today, which read thus :-

¶79

a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the said FIR being 7 of 2019 filed against the Applicants abovenamed by the Bhandup Police Station;

¶80

b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the said Summons being summons dated 08^th January 2019 bearing nos. 281/2019 and 282/2019 addressed by Respondent No.1 calling upon, inter alia, the Applicants herein to remain present at the police station at B handup with all the necessary documents.”

¶81

14In so far as Criminal Interim Application No.1143 of 2020 is
concerned, the same has been filed by Applicant/Intervener to allow him to
oppose the Application for quashing the impugned FIR. In view of the disposal
of the Criminal Application No.239 of 2019, nothing survives further for
consideration in Criminal Interim Application No.1143 of 2020 and the same

¶82

11 of 12

¶83

lgc

¶84

cri.apl-239.19-aw-Cri.IA-1143.20.odt

¶85

to accordingly stand disposed of as such.

¶86

15As directed herein above, within two weeks from today, the
Applicants shall deposit Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) in the Bank
of Children’s Aid Society, Mumbai details of which are as under:-

¶87

Name of Bank of Account : Children Aid Soc Donation
Bank Account No. :02370100005612
Bank Name : UCO Bank
Branch : Matunga Mumbai
IFS Code : UCBA0000237

¶88

16On deposit of costs of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) by
the Applicants in the aforesaid bank account, the Children Aid Society, Mumbai
shall immediately transfer the said amount of costs for betterment of the
children to the New and Additional Children’s Home, Mankhurd, Mumbai.
Payment of aforesaid costs is a condition precedence for allowing this Criminal
Application and this order will take effect after depositing the costs amount by
both parties.

¶89

17Rule is made absolute to the above extent and the Criminal
Application stands disposed of accordingly. List the Petition under caption “For
Compliance” for deposit of costs on 08/03/2021.

¶90

[MANISH PITALE, J][S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶91

12 of 12

¶92

lgc

Subodh Subash Runwal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Subash Runwal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrikrishan Bapurao Lathkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aatique Salimuddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pari Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Dhanwan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandrprakash B. Lodha Vs Rukmini Baban Kadam and Anr.

Pendyala Hemalatha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.