Allowed

M/S Saima Investments Private Limited through Constituted Attorney Waseem Ahmed Ghazi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2023APL/388/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application seeking quashment of an FIR and criminal proceedings was allowed. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed the matters citing a valid amicable settlement between the civil parties as the basis for disposal.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing M.E.C.R.No. 03 of 2021 and the pending proceedings in Case No. 1509/PW/2022 were quashed and set aside.

M/S Saima Investments Private Limited through Constituted… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

07-APL-388-2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 388 OF 2022

¶4

1. M/s Saima Investments Private Limited Through its Constituted Attorney Waseem Ahmed Ghazi.

¶5

2. Nadeem Ahmad

¶6

3. Saima Anjum

¶7

4. Nayeem Ahmad Ghazi

¶8

5. Nazneen Ruby

¶9

6. Nahima Anjum

¶10

7. Waseem Ahmed Ghazi

¶11

8. Yasmin Anjum

¶12

9. Nasreen Anjum

¶13

10.Rakesh Chandra Shukla … Applicants

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. State of Maharashtra

¶16

2. Munish Munir Khan … Respondents

¶17

Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra a/w Jilesh Sanghavi i/b M/s. Solicis Lex,
for the Applicants.

¶18

Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State.

¶19

Mr. Vikram Sutaria, for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

REKHA PRAKASH PATIL

¶21

Rekha Patil 1/6

¶22

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2023.03.08 17:42:58 +0530

¶23

07-APL-388-2022.odt

¶24

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

¶25

 DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2023.

¶26

P. C. :

¶27

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶28

2Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of
the parties and the Application is taken up for final disposal.
Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1–State
and learned Counsel Mr. Vikram Sutaria waives notice on behalf of
the respondent No.2.

¶29

3By this Application, preferred under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seek quashing and
setting aside of the FIR, bearing M.E.C.R.No. 03 of 2021, registered
with the Versova Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 418, 427, 465, 466, 467, 471,
120B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, the
proceeding pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
44th Court, at Andheri, Mumbai, being Case No. 1509/PW/2022.
Quashing is sought on the premise, that the parties have amicably

¶30

settled their dispute.

¶31

Rekha Patil 2/6

¶32

07-APL-388-2022.odt

¶33

4Perused the papers. According to the respondent No.2, his
parents had taken a residential premises i.e. flat No. 101/B and flat
No. 201 in a building known as “Woodstock” at Versova, J. P. Road,
Andheri (West), Mumbai, on leave and license basis from the
applicants. He has stated that pursuant to the leave and license
agreement, his parents had deposited a sum of Rs.10 lakhs with the
applicants. According to the respondent No.2, since the applicants
failed to return Rs.10 lakhs deposit on completion of the leave and
license period, he filed the aforesaid private complaint in the Court
of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri,
Mumbai, pursuant to which, the learned Magistrate passed an order
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an
FIR, bearing MECR No. 03 of 2021 came to be registered with the
Versova Police Station.

¶34

5 After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the said case and

¶35

the case is presently pending before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, being Case No. 1509/PW/
2022.

¶36

Rekha Patil 3/6

¶37

07-APL-388-2022.odt

¶38

6 In the interregnum, during the pendency of the aforesaid
proceeding, the parties amicably settled their dispute and decided to
put a quietus to the same. Accordingly, a copy of Memorandum Of
Understanding (‘MOU’ for short) dated 18th February, 2023 is
tendered before us. The same is taken on record.

¶39

7Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has also tendered an
affidavit of the respondent No.2 dated 18th February, 2023 duly
notarized before the Notary. The said affidavit is taken on record.
In the said affidavit, the respondent No.2 has stated that in view of
amicable settlement between the parties, and since the money
(deposit) has been returned, he has no objection for quashing of the
FIR / proceeding initiated at his behest.

¶40

8The respondent No.2 is present in person. On being
questioned, he re-iterates what is stated by him in his affidavit. He
has been identified by his Counsel. Learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2 has also tendered a photocopy of the Aadhar Card
of the respondent No.2 duly attested by him. The same is taken on
record and the original is verified by the learned APP.

¶41

Rekha Patil 4/6

¶42

07-APL-388-2022.odt

¶43

9Considering the nature of dispute, the amicable settlement
between the parties, the MOU entered into between them, the
affidavit of the respondent No.2 and having regard to the judicial
pronouncements of the Apex Court in the case Gian Singh vs. State
of Punjab & Anr.1 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab &

¶44

Anr.2, there is no impediment in allowing the Application.

¶45

10Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the FIR, bearing
M.E.C.R.No. 03 of 2021, registered with the Versova Police Station,
Mumbai and consequently, the proceeding pending before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, at Andheri, Mumbai,
being Case No. 1509/PW/2022, as against the applicants, are
quashed and set aside.

¶46

11The applicants to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- (total) with the
Mumbai Police Welfare Fund bearing Account No.
465010100008693, IFSC No.UTIB0000465. The said costs to be

¶47

deposited within four weeks from today.

¶48

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶49

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶50

Rekha Patil 5/6

¶51

12 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

13 The above order is subject to costs being deposited as stated aforesaid.

¶53

14 List on 24^th March, 2023, under the caption ‘for compliance’.

¶54

15 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶55

PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶56

Rekha Patil 6/6

M/S Saima Investments Private Limited through Constituted Attorney Waseem Ahmed Ghazi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Saima Investments Private Limited through Constituted Attorney Waseem Ahmed Ghazi and Ors. 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

Harvinder Singh Jogindersingh Vijan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mayur Prakash Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagjit Singh Vijan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajinkya Dattatray Sangitrao Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sayed Faiz Ahmed Kadri and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rakesh Balkrishna Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.