Allowed

Manoj Kumar Chhikara and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2021APL/271/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition arising from a commercial dispute involving patent rights, the Bombay High Court allowed the application to quash the criminal complaint and charge sheet. The court relied on a settlement agreement and the complainant's affidavit consenting to quashing, noting that conviction chances were remote. As a condition, the parties were ordered to contribute to a Children's Aid Soci

What did the court decide?

The criminal case and charge sheet (RCC No.424/2018 clubbed with FIR No.263/2016) were quashed, subject to the deposit of Rs. 50,000 by each party towards the Children's Aid Society, Mumbai.

Manoj Kumar Chhikara and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed LAXMIKANT by LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.09.22 13:55:14 +0530

¶2

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.271 OF 2021

¶5

1]Manoj Kumar Chhikara ]
Age 45 years, Occu : Scientist ]
R/at : Flat No.513, TNR, ]
Northcity Residences, Jeedimetla,]
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500067]….. Accused No.1
]

¶6

2] Rakesh Rana ]

¶7

Age 42 years, Occu : Scientist]
R/at : F-54, Lagpat Nagar,]….. Accused No.2.
Part 1, New Delhi – 110024]….. Applicants.

¶8

Versus

¶9

1]State of Maharashtra ]
(Through Ld. P. P.)]….. Respondent No.1
]

¶10

2]Mr. Ramesh Shankarrao Patil]
For Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd]
Adn Serum Institute of India Research]
Foundation ]….. Original Complainant

¶11

Mr. Abhijeet Sarwate for the Applicants.
Smt. A S Pai, PP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Santosh Pohare for Respondent No.2.
Applicant No.1 present through Video Conferencing.
Respondent No.2 present through Video Conferencing.

¶12

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,

¶13

N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

¶14

DATE :03rd September 2021

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT ( S. S. SHINDE, J)

¶16

1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

¶17

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶18

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 1 of 11

¶19

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶20

2This Criminal Application has been filed by the Applicants for the

¶21

following substantial reliefs :-

¶22

“(b)That the criminal case pending before the Ld.
J.M.F.C. Judge, Cantonment Court, Pune, bearing No.
R.C.C. No.424/2018 clubbed with F.I.R. No.263/2016
registered with the Hadapsar Police Station, Pune be
quashed.

¶23

(c) Further directions be given to the Nazir of the
JMFC (Cant) Pune to refund the amount of Rs.50000
each deposited by the Petitioners towards security
deposit for travelling abroad vide receipt No.7, 8 dated
03/04/2019.

¶24

3The Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the original accused and the
Respondent No.2 is the original complainant in the proceedings pending before
the JMFC, Cantonment Court, Pune. It is the case of the Applicants that,
Applicant No.1, on 12/07/2004, had joined the employment of Serum Institute
of India Research Foundation which is the sister concern of Serum Institute of
India Pvt. Ltd, and both are the parts of Cyrus Poonawalla Group. He tendered
his resignation on 31/05/2013 and, he was relieved from the employment on
17/06/2013. At the time of his resignation, the Applicant No.1 was working as
a Head, Immunobiology and Molecular Research Lab. The Applicant No.2 had
also joined the employment of Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd which is the
sister concern of Serum Institute of India Research Foundation and both are
the parts of Cyrus Poonawalla Group. The Applicant No.2 had tendered his
resignation and was relieved from the employment on 14/08/2011. At the
time of his resignation, the Applicant No.2 was working as an Executive

¶25

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 2 of 11

¶26

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶27

Officer, Quality Control. Thereafter both the Applicants have started working
with MSD Wellcome Trust Hilleman Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi. The
Applicant No.1 has worked with the said Company for the period from
18/06/2013 to 15/10/2020 as a Senior Director, R&D, and the Applicant No.2,
who joined the said company on 01/09/2011, is presently working as a Senior
Scientist, R&D of the said company. It is the case of the Applicants that they
were named as co-inventors in certain Patent Applications filed by the said
Company i.e. MSD Wellcome Trust Hilleman Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and the
patents were published. Thereafter the Serum Institute of India Research
Foundation and Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., through their representative,
have jointly filed the impugned FIR bearing CR No.263/2016 dated
07/05/2016 with the Hadapsar Police Station, Pune for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code,
and under Sections 43 and 66 of the Information and Technology Act against
the Applicants.

¶28

4The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and the
Respondent No.2 have jointly submitted that after completion of investigation
in the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of learned
JMFC, Cantonment, Pune on 09/05/2018 bearing RCC No.424/2018. The
learned counsel appearing for both the parties submitted that during the
pendency of the said proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement, and

¶29

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 3 of 11

¶30

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶31

accordingly Settlement Agreement dated 20th January 2021 came to be
executed between the parties. It is submitted that by virtue of the said
Settlement Agreement, the Respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the impugned
FIR and the Charge-sheet. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Applicants that the Applicants have deposited Rs.50000 each before the
learned JMFC, Cantonment Court, Pune when they sought permission to travel
abroad to attend seminar.

¶32

5With the able assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, we have perused the recitals of the said Settlement Agreement. The
said Settlement Agreement has been signed by Mr. Ramesh Patil for and on
behalf of Serum Institute of India Private Limited and Serum Institute of India
Research Foundation – the Respondent No.2 herein, Mr. Sourabh Sobti for and
on behalf of MSD Wellcome Trust Hilleman Laboratories Private Limited, Dr.
Manoj Kumar Chikkara – the Applicant No.1, and Mr. Rakesh Rana – the
Applicant No.2 herein. Clauses 1.1, 1.10 and 1.12 are material and the same
are reproduced herein under for ready reference :-

¶33

“NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby settled the
aforementoned matters in the manner and on the terms and
conditions as enumerated betlow.

¶34

1.1 On execution of this Settlement agreement and in pursuance to these consent terms, Party A and Party B for effecting the withdrawal of the FIR, shall execute notarized Affidavits through Mr. Rammesh Shankerro

¶35

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 4 of 11

¶36

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶37

Patil/Authorized Representative stating that they have
no objection whatsoever for quashing the FIR
No.263/2016 and criminal case RCC N.424/2018 and
thereby giving full consent to such quashing of the
proceedings.

¶38

1.10 Party C :

¶39

(i) hereby represents, warrants and confirms that, as on
the date of this Settlement Agreement it has not
engaged or entered directly or indirectly in any out-
licensing of the aforementioned patent(s) to any third-
party; and

¶40

(ii) further agrees and confirms that it shall not, before
withdrawing/surrendering/abandoning the rights, title
and interet in the Men A-TT Conjugate by amending the
aforesaid Patent Application, engage directly or
indirectly in any out-licensing of aforementioned
patent(s) to any third party and not to encourage,
induce or otherwise facilitate any third party to take any
action that would be breach of this Settlement
Agreement.

¶41

1.12 Party D and Party E have individually executed an Affidavit (Annexure – B & C) confirming that each of them shall not directly or indirectly file a patent application on reductive amination based “Men A-TT Conjugates” related to the patent family of the Application Nos. 3047/DEL/2013, 2363/EEL/2014, PCT/IB2014/065201 and shall not directly or indirectly disclose the said Confidential Information, acquired during their tenure with Party A or B or received during the course of aforementioned litigation to any third parties, including but not limited to, any individuals, institutions, companies, past/present & future employers, commercial endeavors, clients (prospective or otherwise), vendors (prospective or otherwise) and or any other entities.”

¶42

6 By virtue of the said Settlement Agreement, Mr.Rammesh

¶43

Shankarrao Patil – the authorized representative of Respondent No.2

¶44

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 5 of 11

¶45

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶46

Companies, who is the original complainant, has filed his Affidavit. It is stated

¶47

in Paragraphs 3 to 8 of the said Affidavit thus :-

¶48

“3 On the instructions of Serum Institute of India Private Limited & Serum Institute of India Research Foundation I had filed a F.I.R. with Hadapsar Police Station, Pune bearing C.R. No.263/2016 against Dr. Manoj Kumar Chikkara and Mr. Rakesh Rana respectively. The police investigated the offences. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the Police under the case No. RCC No.424/2018.

¶49

4 The said Criminal complaint is pending before the Ld. J.M.F.C. Cantonment Court, Pune bearing R.C.C. No.424/2018. During the proceedings and on discussions among Serum Institute of India Private Limited & Serum Institute of India Research Foundation & MSD Welcome Trust Hilleman Laboratories Private Limited and Accused/Petitioner Nos.01 and 02 as mentioned above, it is mutually agreed that certain terms and conditions which are amenable and agreeable to the above mentioned parties and agreed out of court, the criminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No.424/2018 pending before the Ld. J.M.F.C. Cantonment Court, Pune, shall be withdrawn.

¶50

5 The dispute which was in regard to RCC No.424/2018 has been resolved in toto.

¶51

6 The Petitioners mentioned hereinabove, have filed the present Petition for quashing of the criminal complaint bearing R.C.C. NO.424/2018.

¶52

7 That for the purpose of getting the proceedings quashed, as is required under the criminal law, I being the Original Complainant, my consent is required. I hereby give my consent for giving “No Objection” for quashing of the Criminal Complaint RCC N.424/2018.

¶53

8 I hereby, vide this Affidavit and on instructions of Serum Institute of India Private Limited & Serum Institute of India Research Foundation, being the Original Complainant, do hereby give my consent for allowing

¶54

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 6 of 11

¶55

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶56

the Criminal Complaint bearing R.C.C. No.424/2018
before the Ld. J.M.F.C. Cantonment Court, Pune to be
quashed.”

¶57

7Mr. Ramesh S Patil – the representative of the 2nd Respondent is
present before this Court through video conferencing. He is identified by the
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent. He stated that he has filed
the impugned FIR on the instructions of Serum Institute of India Private
Limited & Serum Institute of India Research Foundation. He further stated that
the dispute between the parties has been resolved and settled. He also
admitted the execution of the Settlement Agreement between the parties. He
stated that on the instructions of aforesaid two companies, he is giving
consent/no objection for quashing the impugned FIR and the Charge-sheet. He
further stated that it was his voluntary act to sign the settlement agreement
and there was no coercion or undue influence or force upon him to sign and
execute the said settlement agreement.

¶58

8The learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that for
business purpose, both the parties have decided to resolve the dispute, and,
they have voluntarily agreed to settle the dispute and there is no coercion,
undue influence or force upon them for arriving at the settlement. It is also
submitted that both the parties have amicably resolved/settled the dispute and
decided to seek quashing of impugned FIR/Charge sheet by filing this Criminal
Application.

¶59

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 7 of 11

¶60

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶61

9The 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
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.

¶62

10 In view of settlement arrived between the parties, no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the further proceedings in RCC No.424/2018 pending before the learned JMFC, Cantonment Court, Pune 1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶63

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 8 of 11

¶64

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶65

arising out of the impugned FIR bearing CR No.263/2016 registered with
Hadapsar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406,
409 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 43 and 66 of the
Information and Technology Act against the Applicants.

¶66

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 continuation of further
proceedings in RCC No.424/2018 arising out of FIR No.263/2016 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 made
in the FIR, the chances of the conviction of the accused would be remote and
bleak.

¶67

12During the course of arguments, on a specific query being put to
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, whether the Applicants and
Respondent No.2 are willing and ready to deposit some amount towards noble
cause of the Children’s Aid Society, Mumbai, both of them answered in the
affirmative and, on instructions, submitted that the Applicants and the 2nd
Respondent are ready to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- each. Statement is
accepted.

¶68

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 9 of 11

¶69

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶70

13For the reasons stated herein above, the Criminal Application is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), subject to both the Applicants depositing
a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) i.e. Rs.25,000/- by each of
the Applicants, and, the Respondent No.2 depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards the noble cause of the Children’s Aid
Society, Mumbai, who shall immediately transfer the amounts to New &
Additional Children’s Home, Mankhurd, Mumbai, which reads thus :-

¶71

“(b)That the criminal case pending before the Ld.
J.M.F.C. Judge, Cantonment Court, Pune, bearing No.
R.C.C. No.424/2018 clubbed with F.I.R. No.263/2016
registered with the Hadapsar Police Station, Pune be
quashed.

¶72

14In so far as prayer (c) for refund of Rs.50,000/- each deposited by
the Applicants before the JMFC, Cantonment Court, Pune is concerned, liberty
is granted to the Applicants to apply before the said Court.

¶73

15Within a period of two weeks from today, the Applicants to deposit
a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the Respondent No.2 to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-
in the following Bank Account of Children’s Aid Society, Mumbai, who shall
immediately transfer the said amounts for betterment of the children to the
New and Additional Children’s Home, Mankhurd, Mumbai.

¶74

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 10 of 11

¶75

(8) judgment cri.apl-271.21-II.odt

¶76

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

¶77

16Payment of aforesaid costs is a condition precedent for allowing

¶78

this Criminal Application and this order will take effect after depositing the
amount of costs by both parties.

¶79

17Rule is made absolute to the above extent and the Criminal
Application stands disposed of accordingly. List the Application on 22/09/2021
under caption “For Compliance” of deposit of costs.

¶80

[N. J. JAMADAR, J]

¶81

lgc This judgment is corrected pursuant to the speaking to minutes of the order dated 22/09/2021. 11 of 11

Manoj Kumar Chhikara and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Chhikara and Anr. 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

Amir Yashvant Rane Vs the State of Maharashtra Anr. Anr.

Mandar Prakash Lonkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai Vs Dinesh Singh

Shri. Ganesh Vasant Mahadik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lawyers Collective through Its Authorized Signatory Anand Grover and Ors. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

John Fernandes and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra