1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2808 OF 2009 Tejas Kirtikumar Salot & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2825 OF 2009 Tejas Kirtikumar Salot & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.Shirish Gupte with Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocates, i/b. Dharam & Co., for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Shitole, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State. Mr.Dipankar Das i/b. M/s. M.V. Kini & Co., for resp. no.2 in Cri.W.P. No.2808 of 2009. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate, i/b.YKS Legal for resp. no.2 in Cri.W.P. No.2825/2009. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 05, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking for quashing and setting aside the criminal cases and First Information Reports registered by the Economic Offences Wing. The facts in both the 2 petitions are almost identical and, therefore, the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner no.1 in both these petitions is a proprietor of M/s.Ocean Steel Trading Company and the other two petitioners are the guarantors. In Writ Petition no.2808 of 2009, the petitioner no.1 had taken a loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Since the loan was not re-paid by the petitioners, the respondents registered C.R. No.9 of 2008 on 5.4.2008 for the offences punishable under sections 255, 259, 260, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w. 120-B of the I.P.C. Pursuant to investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed and the proceedings are pending by way of Criminal Case No.76/2009 before the learned Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. However, it is submitted that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, there has been a one-time settlement between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 and the petitioners have paid an amount of Rs. 3,05,00,000/- on account of the said one-time settlement. In this factual background, the present petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings. 3. In Criminal Writ Petition No.2825 of 2009, the petitioner no.1 has taken a loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Since the said amount is not repaid, an F.I.R. Came to be registered vide C.R.No.94/2008 for offences 3 punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 240 r/w. 120-B of the I.P.C. During the pendency of the investigation, there has been a one- time settlement between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 and the practitioners have paid an amount of Rs.2,27,00,000/- to the respondent no.2 on account of the one-time settlement. As such, a prayer is made for quashing the F.I.R. 4. Mr.Gupte and Mr.Mundargi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 was of purely personal nature and since the petitioners and the respondent no.2 have settled their disputes amicably, no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending. The learned counsel relied on the judgement of the apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and in the case of Jagdish Chanana & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2008) 15 SCC 704]. 5. Mr.Shitole, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposes the petitions. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the criminal proceedings are pending on the basis of allegations made by the respondent no.2 regarding use by the petitioners of fabricated documents so as to cheat the respondent-Bank. It is, therefore, submitted 4 that a public element is involved in the present case and merely because the petitioners and the Bank have compromised the matter, criminal proceedings should not be quashed. It is submitted that the petitioners have acted in a criminal manner so as to deceive the respondent no.2 and since a substantial material has been collected in support of the allegations in the complaints, this Court should not invoke its extraordinary powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6. Mr.Sakhare, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2825 of 2009 and Mr.Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2808 of 2009 submit that insofar as the respondent-Banks are concerned, they have received full amount and that they have no grievance subsisting as against the petitioners. It is, however, submitted that as to whether the proceedings should be quashed or not is a matter between the Court and the petitioners and the respondent-Banks would not like to make any submissions in that regard. 7. From a perusal of the record, it would appear that the criminal cases were filed by the respondent-Banks since the amounts of loan were not repaid by the petitioners to the respondent-Banks. Both the Banks have filed their affidavits and stated therein that on account of one-time 5 settlement, the petitioners have repaid the amounts and that the Banks have no grievance subsisting as against the petitioners. It could thus clearly be seen from the facts on record that it is purely a personal dispute between the petitioners and the respondent-Bank on account of not repaying the amounts of loan. 8. No doubt, the reliance placed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Ravishankar Prasad & Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 1063] is well-founded. However, it can be seen that on facts, the said case is distinguishable. In the said case, the allegations were against the customers and officers of the respondent-Bank to the effect that the said customers in collusion with some officers of the Bank had committed forgery, fabrication of documents, use of document as genuine and, therefore, the offence under section 120-B read with sections 420 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were committed. In the said case, after 92 witnesses were examined in the trial, the matter was compromised between the Bank and the customers and the High Court invoking the powers under section 482 had quashed the proceedings at that stage. In this factual background, the apex Court found that since the trial was at an advanced stage, the High Court had erred in quashing the charge against the respondent nos.1 and 6 2 i.e. the customers of the Bank. It could be noted that in the said case, an application was filed after 92 witnesses were examined and that too for quashing of the proceedings only insofar as customers of the Bank and not against other accused who were officers of the Bank and who were also charged with offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. In the present case, there are no allegations against the officers of the Bank. The allegation basically is for an offence punishable under section 420. It is not in dispute that the offence punishable under section 420 is compoundable with permission of the Court. As already stated hereinabove, the Banks have already filed affidavits stating therein that they have no grievance subsisting against the present petitioners. It can thus clearly be seen that even if the matter is permitted to go for trial, no fruitful purpose would be served, except burdening the criminal Courts which are already overburdened. I am of view that the facts of the present case are more similar to the facts in Madan Mohan Abbot’s case. I may gainfully refer to the observations of the apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot’s case as under:- “6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question 7 involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the mater 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 utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” 10. In this factual background, I am of considered view that this is a fit case for this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 to give an end to the criminal proceedings as pendency thereof would serve no purpose except waste of time of already over- burdened criminal Courts. 11. In the result, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Needless to state that the bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. 12. However, while allowing the petitions, a note has to be taken of 8 the fact that on account of the criminal complaints filed by the respondent no.2-Bank, the investigating machinery was unnecessarily set in motion and valuable time of the investigating machinery was wasted for investigating the present matter. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to direct payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- in each of the petitions to be shared equally by the petitioners and the respondent no.2. The costs be paid to Police Welfare Fund. The petitioners shall deposit total costs of Rs.50,000/- by A/C. payee Demand Draft within 15 days from today in favour of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai. The respondent no.2 in both the petitions shall give A/C. payee Demand Draft for Rs.25,000/- each in favour of Police Welfare Fund, Mumbai, within a period of 15 days from today. The aforesaid Demand Drafts shall be handed over to the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court (Appellate Side), Mumbai, within the period stipulated above. B. R. GAVAI, J.