1 cri-wp-547-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 547 OF 2010 Pramod Narayan Mittal .. Petitioner Vs. Sunil Satyanarayan Mishra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. M. H. Ahooja for petitioner. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State. Mr. R.D. Soni i/by Ram and Co. for respondent nos.3 to 8. Mr. Mukesh Pandey for original complainant. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JULY 26, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard. Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2 cri-wp-547-10 2. Rule. 3. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the admission stage. 4. The petitioner is an estate agent and a broker. He was appointed as a sole broker by respondent nos.3 to 8. Respondent Nos.3 to 8 are the partners of M/s. Abhishek Builders and Developers. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the Kharghar Police Station and registered an FIR No. 228 of 2009 against the petitioner and respondent nos.3 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was alleged by the complainants that they have been, through the petitioner, purchased/booked Flat No. B-1801-I, Green Heritage Building, Plot No. 79 and 80, Sector 20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai and the same building was under construction by M/s. Abhishek Builders and Developers and the said deal of booking the flat was through the petitioner. It was alleged by the complainants that they were cheated in the said deal. 5. Criminal Writ Petition No. 287 of 2010 came to be filed before 3 cri-wp-547-10 this court by the respondent nos.3 to 8 praying for quashing of the said FIR. When the petition came up before this court (Single Bench), the petitioners therein and the original complainants agreed that the transaction was confirmed and during the pendency of investigation in the FIR, both the parties had decided to terminate the agreement. Accordingly the complainants confirmed the cancellation and receipt of the amount as determined for compensation on account of cancellation of the deal. The complainants’ declaration that there was no subsisting grievance or complaint against the petitioners i.e. the Builders, however, FIR No. 228 of 2009 continued against the present petitioner who was only a broker and, therefore, this petition has been filed by him to quash FIR No. 228 of 2009 as well as Criminal Case No. 361 of 2010 presently pending in the court of the JMFC at Panvel. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of this petition, the police, on investigation of FIR No. 228 of 2009, filed a charge-sheet and, therefore, C.C. No. 361 of 2010 came tobe registered before the learned JMFC at Panvel. 7. Mr. Soni, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 4 cri-wp-547-10 to 8 relied upon the Deed of Declaration signed between the original complainants and respondent nos.3 to 8 on 9/6/2010 and as per the same, the booking made by the complainants has been cancelled and the compensation amount as determined has been received by the complainants from respondent nos.3 to 8. Accordingly, no further dispute survives between the complainants and the developers. In support of this petition, respondent no.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply and has reiterated to grant the same relief as was granted in Criminal Writ Petition No. 287 of 2010 by the Single Bench so as to quash the FIR surviving only against the petitioner as of now. It has been specifically stated on oath in the affidavit that the complainants have no grievance of whatsoever nature against any of the partners of M/s. Abhikshek Builders and Developers as well as the present petitioner, who had acted as a broker so as to sign the deal between the complainants and the developers. Having regard to the observations made by the Single Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No. 287 of 2010, while quashing FIR No.228 of 2009 against respondent nos.3 to 8, we are satisfied that the petition deserves to be allowed as all the parties have compromised and to do justice by invoking the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5 cri-wp-547-10 8. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and Rule is made absolute accordingly. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)