Allowed

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

Bombay HC23 Feb 2023WP/1514/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Bombay dismissed multiple writ petitions seeking quashing of an FIR concerning family property disputes. Relying on the parties' amicable settlement and affidavit, the court approved the quashing of the investigation but conditioned relief on the deposit of costs by each petitioner.

What did the court decide?

FIRs registered as C.R. No.191 of 2019 and Crime No.80 of 2019 by EOW are quashed and set aside subject to the deposit of total costs of Rs.4,00,000/- by the petitioners.

Jagjit Singh Vijan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶2

Shailaja

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1463 OF 2022

¶4

`1. Harvinder Singh Jogindersingh Vijan` `Vs.`	`]`	`Petitioner`
`1. The State of Maharashtra`	`]`
`2. Jasbir Singh Vijan`	`]`
`3. Avinder Singh Vijan` `a/w` `WRIT PETITION NO.1`	`]` `732`	`Respondents` `OF 2022`
`1. Harvinder Kaur Jagajitsingh Vijan`	`]`
`2. Karanjeev Singh Jagjitsingh Vijan` `Vs.`	`]`	`Petitioners`
`1. The State of Maharashtra`	`]`
`2. Jasbir Singh Vijan`	`]`
`3. Avinder Singh Vijan`	`]`	`Respondents`
`a/w` `WRIT PETITION [STAMP] N`	`O.2`	`1660 OF 2022`
`1. Surender Singh Vijan` `Vs.` `1. The State of Maharashtra`	`]` `]`	`Petitioner`
`2. Jasbir Singh Vijan`	`]`
`3. Avinder Singh Vijan`	`]`	`Respondents`

¶5

1 of 11

¶6

SHAILAJA SHRIKANT Digitally signed by SHAILAJASHRIKANT HALKUDE HALKUDE Date: 2023.03.09 18:27:54 +0530

¶7

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶8

a/w

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.1514 OF 2022

¶10

`1. Jagjit Singh Vijan` `]`
`2. Jaspreet Kaur Jagjitsingh Vijan` `]`
`3. Baldev Singh Vijan` `]`
`4. Manpreet Singh Vijan` `]` `Vs.` `1. The State of Maharashtra` `]`	`Petitioners`
`2. Jasbir Singh Vijan` `]`
`3. Avinder Singh Vijan` `]`	`Respondents`
`..…` `Mr. Mukund Pandya, for Petitioners.`
`Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P, for Respondent No.1-S`	`tate.`
`Mr. Bhavesh Thakur, for Respondent No.2.`

¶11

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
 PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.J.
 DATE : 23rd February, 2023.

¶12

COMMON ORDER: [Per Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.]:

1. Heard.

2. Rule.

2 of 11

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶17

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶18

4. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1State and Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.2 in all the petitions.

¶19

5.By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short "Cr. P.C"), the petitioners seek quashing of the First
Information Report (for short "F.I.R") registered vide C.R. No.191
of 2019 with Govandi Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged
offences punishable under sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C") and
Crime No.80 of 2019 registered by EOW General Cheating Branch-
1. Quashing is sought on the premise that the parties have amicably
settled their dispute.

¶20

6. Facts, in brief, are as under.

¶21

3 of 11

¶22

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶23

7.There is chequered history, however, for the purpose of
exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, we deem it necessary to state
material facts essential for disposal of these petitions.

¶24

8.Respondent No.2 - Jasbir Singh Vijan is an original
complainant in all the petitions (hereinafter referred to as
"respondent No.2"). Respondent No.2 is the petitioners' paternal
uncle and brother-in-law. There are several family disputes between
the parties on account of their different business establishments.
Vijan Family owns various properties and shares in different
companies and have established their businesses which are
extensively spread across the State of Maharashtra and in few parts
of India. Vijan brothers, through various Trusts, have acquired
properties and running different businesses.

¶25

9.In an around May, 2008, disputes with respect to the jointly
owned properties arose amongst Vijan family members on account
of illegal decisions taken by the brothers and their respective family
members which were withheld from the respondent No.2, and, as a
result, the respondent No.2 suffered financial losses as well as

¶26

4 of 11

¶27

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶28

mental harassment, whereas other brothers were benefited
financially therefrom. It is needless to go into the minute details of
the dispute in respect of their various family business
establishments, however, few instances would be sufficient to
comprehend the nature of allegations.

¶29

10.Sometime around 2017, respondent No.2 suspected that the
jointly owned property of Silver Chem Industries situated at Plot
No.J-23 and J-24, Navi Mumbai, Taloja MIDC, Taluka Panvel,
District Raigad was being sold to M/s. Scottish Chemicals.
Respondent No.2, through his Counsel, issued a notice dated 20th
June, 2017 to M/s. Scottish Chemicals to secure details of the
alleged transactions. It was revealed that M/s. Scottish Chemicals
had already purchased the property which was jointly owned
family property of Vijans and it came to be transferred fraudulently
by the brothers of the respondent No.2 internally amongst each
other after forging documents without possessing any legal
authorization.

¶30

11.Details of the properties are described in the First Information
Report annexed herewith. Details of the properties have also been

¶31

5 of 11

¶32

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶33

stated in the family settlement agreement dated 9th June, 2021
annexed herewith at "Exhibit F colly".

¶34

12.Looking to the enormity of the offence, C.R. No.191 of
2019 came to be transferred to EOW (General Cheating Branch-1)
to continue investigation by registering a Crime No.80 of 2019.
Pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid crime, apprehending
arrests, petitioners applied for Anticipatory Bail which came to be
rejected by the Sessions Court, Mumbai and consequently, by this
Court also.

¶35

13. The petitioners, therefore, filed a Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No (s) 5587 of 2020, wherein after hearing the parties,
considering their age, relations between the parties inter se, the
Supreme Court vide an order dated 15th December, 2020 granted
interim protection and further proposed the parties to explore
possibility of a settlement and, accordingly, the dispute was referred
for mediation before Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Vazifdar, former
Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. During the
process of mediation, Memorandum of Understanding dated 10th
February, 2021 came into being. Some of the family members could

¶36

6 of 11

¶37

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶38

not join the process of mediation and, therefore, mediation failed.

¶39

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again, after considering the
inter se dispute as well as relations between the parties, referred the
matter for mediation before Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Vazifdar, by
an order dated 19th February, 2021. Pursuant to a successful
mediation, the parties executed a Deed of Adherence dated 10th
June, 2021 accepting and adhering to family settlement agreement
dated 9th June, 2021. Copies of the said documents are annexed at
"Exhibit C" and"Exhibit D" viz. family settlement agreement dated
9th June, 2021, and a Deed of Adherence dated 10th June, 2021
executed by and between the parties.

¶40

15.The parties have amicably settled their disputes referred in the
said"Exhibit C"and"Exhibit D". The Hon'ble Supreme Court
confirmed interim relief granted on 29th June, 2021. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had further directed the parties to act upon the
settlement agreement dated 9th June, 2021"Exhibit E" by an order
dated 29th October, 2021. In view of the above, the respondent
No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 7th January, 2023, duly notarized
before the Notary. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit read thus;

¶41

7 of 11

¶42

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶43

"8.I say that in view of the terms of
family settlement agreement dated 09.06.2021
and Deed of adherence dated 10.06.2021
executed by and between the parties. I am
filing the present Affidavit at my own free will.
I say that no one including the Petitioner
abovenamed has influenced me by any
pressure, threat, duress and/or conspiracy so as
to compel me to file the present Affidavit.

¶44

9.I respectfully submit that in view of
the terms of family settlement agreement dated
09.06.2021 and as per directions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, I say that, I have no objection
to quash the impugned FIR No.191 of 2019
registered with Govandi Police Station and
taken over by Economic Offense Wing,
Mumbai after re-numbering it as EOW C.R.
No.80/2019 registered by EOW General
Cheating Branch.

¶45

16.Respondent No.2 is present before us. On being questioned,
respondent No.2 reiterates what is stated by him in his affidavit.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has identified him.
Learned Counsel has also tendered a photo copy of the Aadhar
Card of the respondent No.2, duly attested by him. The same is
taken on record and the original Aadhar Card is verified by the
learned A.P.P..

¶46

8 of 11

¶47

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶48

17.Considering the nature of dispute, the amicable settlement
between the parties, affidavit of the respondent No.2 and having
regard to the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in the case
of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.1and Narinder Singh &
Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.2, there is no impediment in allowing
the petitions.

¶49

18. The petitions are accordingly allowed and the FIR bearing
C.R. 191 of 2019 registered with Govandi Police Station, Mumbai
and C.R. No.80 of 2019 registered by EOW, General Cheating
Branch, are quashed and set aside subject to the petitioners
depositing total costs of Rs.4,00,000/- ( Rs.50,000/- each), as per
the charts below;

¶50

`Sr.` `No`	`.` `Writ Petition` `Number`	`Petitioner Number` `and name`	`Institution`	`Amount`
`1.`	`W.P. No.1514` `of 2022`	`1. Jagjit Singh` `Vijan`	`Anandashram` `Satara`	`,` `Rs.50,000/-`
`2.`	`W.P. No.1514` `of 2022`	`2.Jaspreet Kaur` `Jagjitsingh Vijan`	`Anandashram` `Satara`	`,` `Rs.50,000/-`
`3.`	`W.P. No.1732` `of 2022`	`1. Harvinder Kaur` `Jagjitsingh Vijan`	`Anandashram` `Satara`	`,` `Rs.50,000/-`
`4.`	`W.P. No.1732` `of 2022`	`2. Karanjeev Singh` `Jagjitsingh Vijan`	`Anandashram` `Satara`	`,` `Rs.50,000/-`

¶51

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶52

2 (2014) 6 SCC 466

¶53

9 of 11

¶54

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶55

Details of "Anandashram Satara" are as under:

¶56

`Bank Name`	`I.D.B.I`
`Bank Account Name`	`Anandashram Satara`
`Bank Account Number`	`45110010950945`
`IFSC Code`	`IBKI0000451`

¶57

`Sr.` `No.`	`Writ Petition` `Number`	`Petitioner Number` `and Name`	`Instit`	`ution`	`Amount`
`1.`	`W.P.No.1463` `of 2022`	`Harvinder Singh` `Jogindersingh` `Vijan`	`Armed` `Battle` `Casualt` `Welfare`	`Forces` `ies` `Fund`	`Rs.50,000/-`
`2.`	`W.P. (Stamp)` `No.21660 of` `2022`	`Surender Singh` `Vijan`	`Armed` `Battle` `Casualt` `Welfare`	`Forces` `ies` `Fund`	`Rs.50,000/-`
`3.`	`W.P. No.1514` `of 2022`	`3. Baldev Singh` `Vijan`	`Armed` `Battle` `Casualt` `Welfare`	`Forces` `ies` `Fund`	`Rs.50,000/-`
`4.`	`W.P. No.1514` `of 2022`	`4. Manpreet Singh` `Vijan`	`Armed` `Battle` `Casualt` `Welfare`	`Forces` `ies` `Fund`	`Rs.50,000/-`
`with`	`"Armed Forc`	`es Battle Causalitie`	`s Welfar`	`e Fund`	`", details of`

¶58

which are as under:

¶59

`Name of Fund`	`Armed Forces Battle`
	`Causalities Welfare`
	`Fund`
`Bank Name`	`Canara Bank`

¶60

10 of 11

¶61

904-wp- 1463-with 3 wp.doc

¶62

`Branch`	`South Block, Defence`
	`Headquarters, New` `Delhi - 110011`
`IFSC CODE`	`CNRB0019055`
`Account Number`	`90552010165915`
`Type of Account`	`Saving`

¶63

The said costs to be deposited within four weeks from today.

¶64

19. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶65

20. Matter be listed for recording compliance regarding deposit of costs, on 31st March, 2023 .

¶66

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

¶67

[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]

¶68

 [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

¶69

11 of 11

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Abhishek Manik Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Hanumant Ghuge Vs State of Maharashtra

Abhishek Manik Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vishal Ashok Bhoir Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Naresh Goyal Vs the Directoratate of Enforcement and Anr.

Harvinder Kaur Jagjitsingh Vijan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.