Allowed

Satish Shankarlal Mina and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Aug 2021WP/2742/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC after verifying that the complainant and petitioners mutually settled the underlying business dispute. The settlement terms, including payment and agreement to withdraw allegations, were confirmed as voluntary. The court held further investigation would be an abuse of process and allowed the writ petition, imposing a d

What did the court decide?

The FIR (C.R. No.297 of 2019) was quashed in the interest of justice. Petitioners and Respondent No.3 were directed to deposit Rs.15,000/- each with the Children's Aid Society, Mumbai.

Satish Shankarlal Mina and Anr. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.08.13 10:59:31 +0530

¶2

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2742 OF 2021

¶5

`1]`	`Satish Shankarlal Mina` `aged about 29 years, occu : Business` `r/o. Plot No.5B, Nutan Nagar, Near Azad` `Weight Bridge, Vapi, Pardi, Valsad` `Gujrat – 396191`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
`2]`	`Shankar Maturam Mina` `aged about 51 years, occu : Business` `r/o. Plot No.5-B, Nutan Nagar, Near Azad` `Weight Bridge, Vapi, Pardi, Valsad` `Gujrat – 396191`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
`3]`	`Virendra Kumar Kedarnath Mishra` `Aged about 57 years, Occ : Business,` `r/o. Ashray Society Bholav, Bharuch,` `Gujarat – 392001`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]`
`4]`	`Babbulal Trilokinath Pandey` `Aged 53 years, Occ : Business` `residing at ; Flat No.01, Divya Plaza` `Sharadwadi Road, Sinnar, Nashik`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]….. Petitioners.`
	`Versus`
`1]`	`The State of Maharashtra`	`]` `]`
`2]`	`Sr. Inspector of Police` `Borivali Police Station, Mumbai`	`]` `]` `]`
`3]`	`Mr. Shailendra Suresh Choksi` `R/o. 12, D-1, Estee Geejay CHS Ltd, Near` `Sai Baba Mandir, Borivali (West),` `Mumbai – 400 092`	`]` `]` `]` `]….. Respondents.`

¶6

Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi and Mr. R C Mishra i/by Tripathi & Associates for the
Petitioners.

¶7

Smt. A S Pai, PP, for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Madhurudan Pareek for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Shailendra S Choksi - Respondent No.3 present.

¶8

1 of 10

¶9

lgc

¶10

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶11

CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

¶12

Reserved on : 10th August 2021
Pronounced on : 13th August 2021

¶13

JUDGMENT : (PER S. S. SHINDE, J)

¶14

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

¶15

of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶16

2This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners for the
following substantial relief :-

¶17

(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR
being C. R. No.297 of 2019 registered by Borivali Police
Station at the instance of the Respondent No.3 herein for
the alleged offence punishable u/s 420, 406, 34 of I.P.C.
in the interest of justice.

¶18

3The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that
the 3rd Respondent has lodged FIR No.297 of 2019 with Borivali Police Station
against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34
of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the said FIR is an outcome of the
business transaction. It is also submitted that the Petitioners have applied for
anticipatory bail application before the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Dindoshi. The
said anticipatory bail came to be rejected by the Sessions Curt, Dindoshi. The

¶19

said rejection order has been challenged before this Court by way of
Anticipatory Bail Application No.1771 of 2019 (Satish Shankarlal Mina and
ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra and anr.) In the interregnum, the parties have

¶20

lgc 2 of 10

¶21

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶22

arrived at a settlement, and the consent terms between the parties have been
signed by the Applicants, Respondent No.3 and their respective advocates. It is
submitted that the said consent terms arrived at between the parties have
been filed in the said ABA No.1771 of 2019.

¶23

4The 3rd Respondent was present before this Court on 10th August
2021, when the matter was heard. He was identified by his advocate. He
stated that it is his voluntary act to settle the dispute and there is no coercion
or undue influence upon him for arriving at the said settlement.

¶24

5In support of the said settlement, the 3rd Respondent has filed his
affidavit in the present Writ Petition. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the said affidavit
read thus :-

¶25

“2 I say that pending investigation of above referred crime myself and the Petitioners decided to amicably settle the dispute in question and accordingly have settled our dispute on the terms and condition mentioned specifically in consent terms executed between us. The said consent terms is placed on record before this Hon’ble Curt in present petition for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶26

3 The present Affidavit is filed by me with a understanding that the Petitioners and myself have mutually settled their respective disputes amongst us and on the basis of the said amicable settlement, I hereby withdraw all the allegations made by me against the Petitioners and do not intend to proceed further in the criminal case filed against the Petitioner. This present term is binding on me and I undertake to abide by the same on compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in consent terms

¶27

3 of 10

¶28

lgc

¶29

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶30

executed between myself and petitioners.

¶31

4 I have no claim of whatsoever in nature against the Petitioners after I receive the settlement amount as mentioned in consent terms and as per the order passed in ABA 1771 of 2019 and the present Affidavit may be treated as consent for quashing of the above FIR registered with Borivali Police Station, Mumbai vide FIR No.297 of 2019 under section 420, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶32

5 Hence, without going into the merits of the matter and without intending to press allegations levelled by me, I seek to withdraw allegations against the Petitioner in the light of the above settlement arrived at between both the parties. I further stated that the same is being done by me without any coercion, force or influence and is given out of my free consent.

¶33

6The learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the
parties 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 the parties have amicably resolved/settled the dispute and
decided to seek relief of quashing of impugned FIR by way of filing this Writ
Petition. In support of the said settlement, they have also placed on record the
Consent Terms duly signed by the parties as well as their respective advocates.

¶34

7During the course of hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for the Respondent/State, on instructions, submits that there are no
criminal antecedents against the Petitioners.

¶35

4 of 10

¶36

lgc

¶37

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶38

8With the able assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, we have perused the recitals of the said Consent Terms. The copy of
the said consent terms dated 07th April 2021 is placed on record at page 101 of
the writ paper book (Exhibit-F). The consent terms are duly signed by the
original complainant i.e. the 3rd Respondent herein, and the
Applicants/Accused and their respective advocates. It would be apt to
reproduce herein under the recitals of the said consent terms for ready
reference :-

¶39

“CONSENT TERMS

¶40

The Applicant/Accused and the Org. Complainant both
have agreed to settle the entire dispute amicably and
thereby have agreed to file the Consent Terms as under :-

¶41

1. That, both the parties have confirmed that during pendency of the above Anticipatory Bail Application, the accused/applicants have deposited Rs.55,00,000/- with the registry of this Hon’ble Court to show their bonafide without prejudice to their rights and contention as directed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶42

2. That, both the parties i.e. the complainant and the accused in the present F.I.R. no.297 of 2019 punishable u/s 420, 406 of I.P.C. registered with Borivali Police Station, Mumbai arisen out of account disputes is amicably settled and none of them have any grievance against each other.

¶43

3 That, both the parties have agreed to present the petition for quashing the present F.I.R. No.297 of 2019 punishable u/s 420, 406 of I.P.C. registered with Borivali Police Station, Mumbai before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court.

¶44

4. That, both the parties have agreed that on quashing of the present F.I.R. No.297 of 2019 punishable u/s 420,

¶45

5 of 10

¶46

lgc

¶47

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶48

406 of I.P.C. registered with Borivali Police Station,
Mumbai, the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty
Lakh only) to be given to the complainant, and balance
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) to be refunded to
the applicant/accused forthwith.

¶49

5. That, both the parties have agreed that the complainant will fully co-operate and make clear and bold submissions before the Hon’ble Court in regards to amicable settlement reached by and between the parties, so that, on the basis thereof, the impugned F.I.R. would be quashed, and after quashing the F.I.R. the present application to be disposed of on the ground and in terms of settlement.

¶50

6. That, both the parties agreed that after execution of this settlement, no any short of claim, complaint or grievance will residue or remain against each other and no any proceeding/s either civil and or criminal concerning and/or touching to the subject matter of the present application will be maintainable and or entertained in any court of law.

¶51

7. Notwithstanding what is provided in this consent terms, breach of any of the clauses mentioned above shall be construed as an event of default thereof and the nondefaulting party shall have the right to seek the legal recourse to challenge such a breach and seek necessary legal reliefs from competent court.

¶52

8. That, both the parties have read over the terms and conditions mentioned hereinabove and confirmed it to be exactly as amicably settled between them and further confirm that the terms and conditions of this consent terms shall be fully & effectually binding upon the parties hereundersigned verbatim. The parties hereundersigned are identified by their respective advocates.”

¶53

9 The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab

¶54

and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and

¶55

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶56

lgc

¶57

6 of 10

¶58

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶59

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.

¶60

10In view of settlement arrived between the parties, no fruitful
purpose will be served by continuing the further investigation of FIR No.297
of 2019 registered with Borivali Police Station against the Petitioners for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶61

11In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, it is abundantly

¶62

7 of 10

¶63

lgc

¶64

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶65

clear that the 3rd Respondent is not going to support the allegations made
against the Petitioners 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 3rd 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.

¶66

12It is pertinent to note at this stage that though the parties have
resolved/settled their dispute between them and approached this Court for
quashing of the FIR lodged by the 3rd Respondent against the Petitioners, we
deem it appropriate to impose costs upon the parties. Accordingly we direct
the Petitioners to deposit costs of Rs.15,000/- and the 3rd Respondent to
deposit costs of Rs.15,000/- 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.

¶67

13For the reasons stated herein above, the Writ Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a), subject to depositing Rs.15,000/- by the Petitioners
and Rs.15,000/- by the 3rd Respondent, which reads thus :-

¶68

(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR
being C. R. No.297 of 2019 registered by Borivali Police
Station at the instance of the Respondent No.3 herein for
the alleged offence punishable u/s 420, 406, 34 of I.P.C.
in the interest of justice.

¶69

8 of 10

¶70

lgc

¶71

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶72

14The Petitioners to deposit Rs.15,000/-, and the 3rd Respondent to
deposit Rs.15,000/- in the Bank of Children’s Aid Society, Mumbai within two
weeks from today, details of which are as under:-

¶73

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

¶74

On deposit of costs of Rs.15,000/- by the Petitioners and costs of Rs.15,000/-
by the 3rd Respondent 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.

¶75

15 As per the Consent Terms arrived at between the Petitioners and the 3^rd Respondent, the Petitioners have deposited Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs only) with the Registry of this Court. In terms of clause (4) of the said Consent Terms, the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) is to be given to the complainant i.e. the 3^rd Respondent, and balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) is to be refunded to the Petitioners. The Registry shall hand over the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) to the complainant i.e. the 3^rd Respondent, and shall refund the balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the Petitioners. The Registry shall also give the interest, if any, accrued on the lgc 9 of 10

¶76

cri.wp-2742.21.odt

¶77

amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the complainant i.e. the 3rd Respondent and, the
interest, if any, accrued on the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Petitioners.

¶78

16Rule is made absolute to the above extent and the Criminal Writ
Petition stands disposed of accordingly. List the Petition on 27th August 2021
under caption “For Compliance” of deposit of costs.

¶79

[N. J. JAMADAR, J]

¶80

[S. S. SHINDE , J]

¶81

10 of 10

¶82

lgc

Satish Shankarlal Mina and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Shankarlal Mina and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Arun Hindurao Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Snehal Abhaykumar Govekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramila Tanaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nishant Vijay Ghosalkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shabhana Parveen Inayatullah Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lata Dadarao Pawar @ Smt. Ayesha Amir Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.