1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.287 OF 2010 Vijay Ravji Gajra and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Sunil Satyanarayan Mishra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Amit Desai, Senior Advocate with D.F.Sharma, Vipin Kasle i/b. M/s.Dharam & Co. for petitioners Mr.S.R.Shinde APP Mr.Mukesh Pandey for complainant. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th January 2010. P.C.: 1] The original complainant is present in Court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant Sunil Satyanarayan Mishra states that he had lodged an FIR alleging commission of offences punishable under section 420, 465, 468, 471 and 31 of IPC against the petitioners herein and one Pramod Mittal. The allegations are that the complainant works as a Clearing Agent in JNPT. He had approached one Abhishek Builders and Developers and evinced interest in purchasing residential flat/ premises for himself. When he visited the site, he met 2 one Pramod Mittal. Mr.Mittal represented to the complainant that he is the sole broker of the said builders and developers and he showed the complainant one flat/ premises. The complainant approved one flat and thereafter, the broker introduced him to the petitioners. Thereafter, the consideration was agreed with regard to this premises. The complainant and his wife agreed to the terms and, thereafter, paid a sum of Rs.6.25 lakhs by cheque as earnest money and agreed to pay the balance sum after construction work is completed and possession is handed over. It is stated that the petitioners assured the complainant that he can approach the broker for further steps/ dealings. 2] It is alleged that when the bank’s statement was perused by the complainant, he discovered that the cheque was deposited in the account of M/s.Vidhi Associates. He was told by Mr.Mittal that both M/s.Vidhi and Abhishek are one and the same. It is then alleged that several cheques were handed over to Mr.Mittal payable to Abhishek Builders and Developers and agreement was also executed. The Registration amount and further sums were also handed in. However, it is alleged that the petitioners refused to hand over possession of the premises on the ground that a cancellation letter has been issued. On production of a copy of this 3 cancellation letter, the complainant discovered that the signature of his wife and himself have been forged. 3] That is how, he approached the police and lodged the subject FIR. 4] Now, the petitioners and complainant have agreed that the transaction is confirmed but after negotiations and discussions, it is decided to mutually terminate the agreement. The complainant has confirmed the cancellation and received the sum determined as compensation for such cancellation. Therefore, it is stated by him that he has no subsisting grievances or complaint against the petitioners. He does not wish to proceed with the criminal case as against the present petitioners. 5] Such statements are made by the learned Advocate for the original complainant in the presence of the original complainant. Thus, in the peculiar facts of this case, there is no impediment in accepting these statements and quashing the criminal proceedings/ FIR bearing 228 of 2009 registered with Kharghar Police Station in Raigad Dist., insofar as petitioners are concerned. The same is accordingly quashed. However, 4 quashing of the said CR as against the petitioners shall not be construed as a bar or impediment for the complainant to prosecute Mr.Mittal and all proceedings, civil and criminal, as against the said Mittal can continue irrespective of the order quashing the criminal case against the petitioners. Petition disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)