1 (Cr.WP2191/10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2191 OF 2010 Raghvendra H.S. & Anr. ..... Petitioners. V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... Respondents. Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/b S.R. Shukla for the Petitioners. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. Mr. Ramesh C. Jain for Respondent No.2. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 4th August, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Petitioners are original accused against whom Respondent No.2 had filed a complaint vide FIR being C.R. No.521 of 2008 which was registered by MIDC Police Station, Mumbai under sections 464, 467, 471, 474, 420 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case was then transferred to GBCB CID, EOW, Unit-III, Mumbai and it has now been numbered as C.R. No.63 of 2008. 2 (Cr.WP2191/10) 3. By this Petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Petitioner is seeking an order of this Court for quashing the said complaint by consent of Respondent No.2 who is the original complainant. 4. Brief facts are that the Respondent No.2 - original complainant has filed a complaint in which he has alleged that the Petitioners had cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs 2 crores by making a false representation by preparing forged and fabricated documents. In the complaint he has alleged that the Petitioners represented that they are representing the Company which is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and showed a report of Directorate of Geology and Mining, Govt. of Maharashtra. It is alleged in his statement that it was represented that the Petitioner No.1 was a multi millionaire and had a vast experience in the mining and mineral business and, therefore, it was decided to enter into MOU with the said Company M/s Jiwa Mines & Minerals Ltd. It is alleged in his statement that Mr. Raghavendra i.e Petitioner No.1 herein insisted that the cheque for Rs 2 crores should be given as an advance and, therefore, the complainant issued a cheque dated 21/04/2008 for the said amount. Further negotiations, therefore, were to be held with Petitioner No.2. Then it is stated in his statement that the company presentation was made and after which the complainant was impressed that they had turn over of Rs 350 crores in 2006. According to 3 (Cr.WP2191/10) the complainant, representation was made that the Petitioners had 110 acres of land at Ajara, District Kolhapur and there was huge iron ore deposit in the said land. He stated that representation also was made that the Company had approached the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) and had got surveyed the said land from the IBM in order to find out quality of iron ore deposit. A copy of the report of IBM was also produced. In view of the representation made and the report tendered by the accused, the complainant showed his interest for investing Rs 41 crores in the said project. 5. According to the complainant, subsequently, it turned out that the representation made was not correct and, therefore, it was alleged that the accused had made a false representation and had cheated him. Respondent No.2 and the Petitioners herein, thereafter, settled their dispute and the amount which was received by the Petitioners was paid with interest and consent terms were filed in the court. In view of the consent terms filed by the parties, this Court also was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners. The Petitioners, have now filed this Petition for quashing the complaint by consent. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 submitted that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed. He submitted that the parties had entered into consent terms and the said consent terms are part of the compilation of documents annexed to this Petition. In 4 (Cr.WP2191/10) support of his submissions the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma vs. State and Ors.1 7. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has filed two affidavits. The first affidavit is dated 29th July 2010 and the second affidavit is dated 2nd August, 2010. In both these affidavits it is stated that the Petitioners had fabricated the report of the and, therefore, this is not a fit case for quashing the complaint. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State invited my attention to the fabricated report which is at Exhibit-C to the affidavit dated 2nd August, 2010. It is stated that the real report of the IBM is annexed at Exhibit-B to the affidavit dated 29th July, 2010. Secondly, it is submitted that though the Company M/s Jiwa Mines & Minerals Ltd was registered under the Companies Act on 22/07/2008 which is evident from the document at Exhibit-A annexed to the affidavit dated 29/7/2010, the Petitioners had represented that it was already registered in April, 2008. it is, therefore, submitted that, again, a false statement was made that the said Company was registered in April, 2008. The learned APP also invited my attention to the letter written by Deputy Commissioner of Police to the Controller of Mines dated 14/08/2008 asking him to verify and confirm the report attached to the said letter wherein it was mentioned that the survey was conducted by the IBM. He submitted that the 1 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 267 (S.C.) 5 (Cr.WP2191/10) reply was given by the Chief Controller of Mines dated 28/8/2008 and in the said letter it was categorically mentioned that no such survey was carried out by them for preparing reconnaissance report on iron ore deposit in Taluka Ajara, District Kolhapur, Maharashtra. The learned APP, therefore, submitted that since there was fabrication of the report of the IBM, the offence in question could not be said to be merely a personal dispute between the accused and the complainant but it was a crime against the society at large and that there was every possibility that other members of the public also could have been cheated on the basis of the said fabricated report. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Marwadi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the said report which is annexed at Exhibit-C to the affidavit in reply dated 02/08/2010 did not indicate anywhere that it was a report of the IBM. It is submitted that therefore the contention of the learned APP that report of the IBM was fabricated is incorrect since no such representation was made in the report that it was a report of IBM. 9. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that the Investigating Officer had taken great pains in carrying out the investigation and as a result of his untiring efforts, the entire fraud has been brought to light and that some compensation be paid to the Police Welfare Fund. 6 (Cr.WP2191/10) 10. After having heard the learned Counsel for respective parties, in my view, the submission made by the learned APP that crime against society at large has been committed, cannot be accepted particularly because the complainant in his complaint in categorical terms stated that on the basis of representation made by the Petitioners herein he had been cheated and was made to pay an amount of Rs 2 crores. Firstly, there is no document on record to show that the Petitioners had produced any document in support of their representation that the said company was already registered when the first MOU was executed on 21/04/2008. The complainant, therefore, merely on oral representation by the Petitioners had accepted that the said Company is a registered company. Secondly, so far as second report is concerned which is reconnaissance report on iron ore deposit in Taluka Ajara, District Kolhapur, Maharashtra which is marked at Exhibit-C to the affidavit in reply dated 2nd August, 2010 of the State Government also does not indicate anywhere that this is a report of the IBM. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said report was of the IBM which was fabricated. 11. Be that as it may, the fact remains that, thereafter, parties have settled the dispute. The principal offence is of cheating and criminal conspiracy under section 420 and 120B and incidental offences are the offences under sections 464, 467, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking into 7 (Cr.WP2191/10) consideration the said offences, in my view, dispute between the parties is a personal one and, therefore, ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdish Chanana & Ors v. State of Haryana & Anr.1, in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab2 and in Manoj Sharma (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It is an admitted position that no other persons were cheated by the present Petitioners and no complaint has been filed with the police by any other person. Hence, there is no impediment for quashing the said complaint while exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. So far as the contention of the learned APP in respect of compensation to be paid to the Police Welfare Fund is concerned, such a direction cannot be given. In this case, it is no doubt true that Investigating Officer has taken great pains to investigate the said offence and his effort is laudable and has to be appreciated. However, it is the duty of every Police Officer to investigate into the cognizable offence and submit his report to the court and for doing the said job he cannot expect any compensation for the said work undertaken by him. However, I must record my appreciation for the work done by the Investigating Officer and the efforts taken by him but beyond that no order of compensation can be passed. 1 AIR 2008 SC 1968 2 AIR 2008 SC 1969 8 (Cr.WP2191/10) 13. In the result, the FIR dated 21/08/2008 which was registered vide C.R. No.521/2008 which was initially registered by MIDC Police Station, Mumbai under sections 464, 467, 471, 474, 420 read with section 120B of the IPC and consequently transferred GBCB CID, EOW, Unit III, Mumbai and numbered as C.R. No.63 of 2008 and which is now pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 19th Esplanade Court, Mumbai vide Court Case No.902/PW/2009 is quashed and set aside. 14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 15. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 9 (Cr.WP2191/10)