Allowed

Som Samir Chatterjee v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Jul 2023APL/158/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR. The dispute arose from a commercial transaction which was amicably settled, and the complainant received the settlement amount. The court held that continuing prosecution would be an empty formality and quashed the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 03 of 2012 dated 26 January 2012 and proceedings arising therefrom quashed and set aside, subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000/- each by the applicant and respondent No.2 with the High Court LSA.

Som Samir Chatterjee Vs State of Maharashtra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

apl 158.23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2023

¶4

Mr Som Samir Chatterjee

¶5

Age 41 years, Occ: ServicesR/at A 107,
Dreams Elina, Handewadi Road,

¶6

Satav Nagar,

¶7

Hadapsar, Pune 411028.

¶8

…
 Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The State of Maharashtra (Through Koregaon Park Police Station)

¶11

2.Mr. Sandeep Bhargav

¶12

Aged: 54, Occu.: Business

¶13

R/at 103/1014 Sky Park,

¶14

 New Kanatwadi Road, Pali Hill,

¶15

 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050… Respondents

¶16

Mr Tanmay Karwa for Applicant.

¶17

Mr Chaitanya Kulkarni for Respondent No.2.

¶18

Smt A S Pai, GP a/w. Mr J P Yagnik, APP for the Respondent
No.1-State.

¶19

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE &
 R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶20

 DATE : 5th JULY 2023

¶21

Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :-

¶22

LATA SUNIL PANJWANI

¶23

Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2023.07.11 15:07:04 +0530

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Page No. 1 of 4 ______________________________________________ 5^th July 2023

¶26

apl 158.23.doc 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

3.By this Criminal Application, under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks the
quashing of FIR No. 03 of 2012, dated 26 January 2012,
registered against him at Kaoregaon Park Police Station, at the
instance of Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 417,420, 465,468,471 r/w 120B of the
Indian Penal Code. Quashing is sought on the premise that the
parties have amicably settled their dispute.

¶28

4.When this Criminal Application for quashing the
impugned FIR was placed before us, it was stated by the
learned counsel for Applicant and Respondent No.2/Original
Complainant that the dispute was arising from commercial
transaction, and had been resolved amicably by paying one
time settlement amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Complainant.
They submit that dispute was purely civil and continuing the
prosecution would serve no purpose, given the settlement
between the parties. They also submitted that a copy of the
Memorandum of Understanding executed between Applicant
and Respondent No.2 has also been filed on record. They

¶29

Page No. 2 of 4 ______________________________________________ 5^th July 2023

¶30

apl 158.23.doc

¶31

argued that this case is covered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court’s decisions in Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab & Anr.1
and Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Punjab and Anr.2

¶32

5.Learned APP representing Respondent No.1 submits
that suitable orders may be passed.

¶33

6.The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 tendered a
consent affidavit dated 5 July 2023. Respondent No.2
appeared in Court and stated that he has no objection to the
quashing of the impugned FIR against the Applicant due to a
settlement between them. Upon questioning, he confirmed
the contents of his affidavit. His counsel identified him, and
the learned APP has verified his original Aadhar Card, of
which a duly signed copy is placed on record.

¶34

7.After examining the present case in accordance with the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra) and the material on
record, it is clear that the dispute between the parties had
been resolved amicably. As the complainant has received the
one time settlement amount, continuing the prosecution

¶35

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶36

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶37

Page No. 3 of 4 ______________________________________________ 5^th July 2023

¶38

apl 158.23.doc would be an empty formality. In order to secure ends of justice, it would be appropriate in the given case that the impugned FIR is put to an end. The consent affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 support the prayer to quash the impugned FIR. Therefore, based on these facts, FIR bearing C.R. No. 03 of 2012 registered with Koregaon Park Police Station against the Applicant needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we allow this Criminal Application in terms of prayer clause (a) and quash and set aside the subject FIR No.03 of 2012 dated 26 January 2012 and the proceedings arising therefrom, subject to the condition that the Applicant and Respondent No.2 deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- each with the High Court Legal Services Authority within three weeks of the uploading of this order.

¶39

8.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Application is
disposed of accordingly.

¶40

R. N. LADDHA, J. NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶41

L.S.Panjwani, P.S.

¶42

Page No. 4 of 4 ______________________________________________ 5^th July 2023

Som Samir Chatterjee v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Som Samir Chatterjee v. 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

Mantra Magic Films Pvt. Limited through Roabin Mazumdar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajhoo Ambalal Bbarot and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhashchandra Vinubhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Sahadeo Sali and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hari Bhachubhai Mujat and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadhana Jayant Vaidya and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.