1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1445 OF 2010 Mr.Ajay Jogindernath Mehra & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S. Garud i/b. M/s.Khaitan & Jaykar for the Petitioners. Mr.A.K. Singh for Respondent No.4. Mrs.R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MAY 7, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and APP for the State and Counsel for respondent no.4. 2 This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 3 Respondent no.4 had filed a complaint in October 2007 in the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, 24th Court at Borivali for the offences punishable under Section 420B read with 34 read with 120B of the IPC. In the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioners who were Directors of M/s.Enercon (India) Limited made inquiry in respect of the tender notification dated 11th February, 2006 to his company M/s.Shripati Infrastructures Pvt.LTd. Pursuant to the said enquiry, the complainant company sent their letter of intent dated 26th May, 2006 and finally, purchase order dated 8th June, 2006 was assigned to the respondent no.4 company. According to the complainant, the accused nos.1 and 2 made a representation that their company is engaged in the business of wind mill power project and it obtains land from the forest department for installing wind mills after developing the approach roads and after laying down the concrete foundation. According to the complainant, various representations were made. Relying on the said 3 representations, the complainant company worked for the said company in which the petitioners are Managing Director and Director, respectively. Bills were raised by the complainant company for the work done by them. However, the said amount was not paid and therefore, the said complaint had been filed. 4 The learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the police to investigate the case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. After the learned Magistrate passed the said order directing the investigation under Section 156(3), an FIR was registered with the Dindoshi police Station vide MCR No.4/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 Part II read with 120B of the IPC. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed in the said court. Thereafter, the complainant made an application to the Economic Offences Wing and alleged that the investigation was not properly done by the Dindoshi police station and accordingly, the case was transferred to EOW and was registered as 4 MECR No.2/2008 and other offences of the IPC viz. Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 were added to the existing offences which were registered by the Dindoshi police station. The petitioners, thereafter, filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and under Section 227 of the Constitution of india for quashing the complaint. 5 During the pendency of this criminal case, the parties resolved their differences and disputes and respondent no.4 has now filed an affidavit dated 6th May, 2010 in which he has stated that he has no objection if the complaint as well as further investigation initiated by respondent no.3 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.4 who is original complainant is present in the Court. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the dispute essentially is regarding non-payment of the bills raised by respondent no.4 and dispute, therefore, appears to be of a civil nature. Apart from that, the grievance 5 of respondent no.1 is purely personal. Even otherwise, essentially, grievance was that the petitioners, according to the respondent no.4, had allegedly cheated the company of respondent no.4 and therefore, initially it was alleged that the offence under Section 420 was committed by the petitioners herein. Section 420 is a compoundable offence under the provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The other offences have been subsequently added after the inquiry was transferred. The complaint is quashed since no useful purpose would be served keeping this complaint pending because eventually, the complainant does not support the prosecution, the petitioners herein ultimately be acquitted of the offences of which they are charged. The Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2008(4) Scale has observed as under :- 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July 2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of 6 FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court, Crl.Misc.Petition No.42/2008 has been filed putting on record a compromise deed dated 30th April 2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1386 7 and two other cases. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. 6 In the result, the criminal complaint filed in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, at Borivali, vide C.R.No. 327/PW/2008 and the criminal complaint arising out of the said proceedings MCR No.4/2007 registered with the Dindoshi Police Station dated 11th October, 2007 and MECR No.2/2008 registered with the Economic Offences Wing for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 read with 120B read with 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 Part II of the IPC are quashed and set aside. 7 Writ Petition is allowed and is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). (V.M. KANADE, J.)