1 apl.557-558.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Application No. 557 of 2011 Jagmohan Dalmiya ....Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .....Respondents Mr. Satish Maneshinde, Mr. S.D. Nangre, Mr. Ranjeet M. Pawar and Mr. Suraj P. Nangre, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. S. Parab i/b. M/s. Parab and associates for respondent no.2. Mr. D.R. More and A.S. Shitole-APP for the State. WITH Criminal Application No. 558 of 2011 Krishna Mohan Choudhary .....Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .....Respondents Mr. Rajendra Shirodkar, Mr. Sayaji D. Nangre and Mr. Nihar Ghage, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. S. Parab i/b. M/s. Parab & associates for respondent no.2. Mr. D.R. More and A.S. Shitole-APPs for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 8th August, 2011 PC: Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 apl.557-558.11.sxw 3. Both these applicants have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings being C.C.No. 289/PW/2008 arising out of C.R. No.30/2006 registered with respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 420, 45, 467, 468, 477(a), 34 and 120(b) of I.P.C. 4. The applicant in criminal application no. 557/2011 was at the relevant time President of Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as BCCI). The applicant in Criminal Application No. 558/2011 was employed with the applicant Jagmohan Dalmiya. The allegation in the nutshell on the basis of which the FIR was registered at the instance of respondent no. 2 was that the applicant Jagmohan misutilized the funds of the respondent no.2 and that applicant Krishna Mohan Choudhary though was not employee of BCCI, had issued directions at the instance of Jagmohan Dalmiya pertaining to certain transactions. The allegations pertain to the event of world cup which was organised in India in 1996. There has been a long drawn litigation between the applicant Jagmohan Dalmiya on one hand and respondent no.2 BCCI. In a nutshell the allegation against the applicant Jagmohan Dalmiya was that he has utilised the funds of BCCI without the BCCI approving of the same. On account of the said dispute between the applicant Jagmohan Dalmiya and respondent no.2 he was also suspended from the membership of BCCI. 5. However, it appears that matter has been amicably settled between the parties and that the parties have decided to give an end to all the litigations between them. 6. Shri Parab the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 submits that in view of the consent terms entered between the parties and the petitioner Jagmohan Dalmiya having complied with the obligations as required under the consent terms, the respondent no. 2 BCCI has no objection for 3 apl.557-558.11.sxw quashing the criminal proceedings. 7. However, Shri More and Shri Shitole, the learned APPs vehemently object. They submit that from the perusal of the chargesheet, it would reveal that there is sufficient material to establish misappropriation at the instance of the applicants. It is, therefore, submitted that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. The parties have recorded the consent terms between them which are as under:- “ CONSENT TERMS The Plaintiff and Defendant hereby agree that - 1. The Defendant had applied to Plaintiffs for removal of order of suspension of Defendant passed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant. 2. The Plaintiffs, pursuant to the request of Defendant, vide Resolution dated 29.9.2010 passed in the Annual General Body Meeting have approved the withdrawal of order of suspension of Defendant’s membership that had been passed against the Defendant. 3. Accordingly, the Defendant has withdrawn Suit bearing No. CS 22 of 2007 filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs in the Calcutta High Court. The Defendant hereby further agrees and undertakes to withdraw the application Under Section 340 CRPC being Application GA No. 2240/2007 initiated by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs in Suit NO. 22 of 2007. The Defendant will take all necessary steps before Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court for that purpose if so required. 4. The Plaintiff shall have no objection for the Defendant and to take all appropriate steps by Defendant for moving the court for discharge/quashing of criminal proceedings initiated upon the complaint of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in Mumbai bearing No. 289/PW/2008 pending before Ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 19th Court, Esplanade Court, Mumbai arising out of C.R. No. 30/2006 registered at EOW, Unit III, Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai. 4 apl.557-558.11.sxw 5. In view of the above undertaking given by the parties, the Plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw the Civil Suit pending in Mumbai High Court against the Defendant with no order as to costs.” 9. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the consent terms the applicant Jagmohan has withdrawn the proceedings pending before the High Court including the proceedings pending for forgery. It is also not in dispute that respondent no.2 has also withdrawn the suit. 10. The Apex Court in the case of SLP No. 273/2006 filed against the applicant Jagmohan Dalmiya has permitted to withdraw the said SLP in view of copy of the email received from legal advisor of BCCI. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abott v/s. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582, has observed thus:- “It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has, on 11th January 2004, passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.” 5 apl.557-558.11.sxw 12. In the present case also it could be seen that matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of the material on which the prosecution relies, it appears that allegations are that the petitioner had spent an amount of BCCI on his hotel expenses, travelling etc. However, it appears that now even according to BCCI, the said amount which was spent was spent in his official capacity. Insofar as the applicant Krishna Mohan Choudhary is concerned, the only allegation is that though he was not employed with BCCI, he has directed certain amounts to be spent from the BCCI funds at the instance of Jagmohan Dalmiya. When the matter is amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan (supra). However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute. 13. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), however, subject to costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Costs to be paid by the applicant Jagmohan Dalmiya by drawing demand draft in the name of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai Police, Mumbai. The said demand draft be deposited with the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today and receipt thereof be placed on the record of the present matters. (B.R. GAVAI, J)