1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 987 OF 2010 Bharat Kumar Vrajlal Jogi ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Yogesh B. Dandekar for Petitioner Mr. A.M. Saraogi-Senior Counsel for Respondents 2 to 100 Mr.A.S. Shitole -APP for State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 26TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Complainant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioner is the Accused No.1 in a complaint which is filed by one Rakesh R. Ruparelia- Respondent No.41 for an offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code r/w. section 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999. 3. The Petitioner has filed this petition under 2 Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proceudre for quashing the said complaint. 4. According to the Complainant, the Petitioner made a representation to him and to other Respondents that if the funds are invested with him, they would be in a position to earn interest at the rate of 2% p.m. A representation was made that the Petitioner and his associates could not accept the deposits in view of the prohibition by Reserve Bank of India and, therefore, they were not in a position to pay interest at the rate of 2% p.m. and, therefore, he had introduced a scheme whereby it was shown that one of the sister concerns of the Petitioner would purchase materials and these materials would be sold to the concerned investors and, thereafter, amount would be refunded along with interest. Accordingly, the Respondents 2 to 100 invested various amounts with the Petitioner. However, after some time, the Petitioner closed the shop on 20.8.2002 and thereafter the present complaint is filed. After the FIR was lodged, the Government attached the properties of the Petitioner herein. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that now he has settled the 3 matter with the Respondent Nos.2 to 100 and have paid them various amounts in full and final settlement of their claim. Affidavit in reply has been filed by the Original Complainant on behalf of himself and on behalf of the other investors, in which he has stated that the well wishers of the Petitioner have paid the agreed amount to the investors. A chart is annexed to this petition, in which the amount paid to each of the investors has been mentioned. 6. Shri Saraogi, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 100 states that amounts mentioned in the first column of Exhibit 1 have been received by the Respondent Nos.2 to 100 and, therefore, he has no objection if the complaint which was filed against the present Petitioner is quashed. 7. The learned APP for the State after taking instructions from the Investigating Officer Shri R.V. RanMall -API, DCB-CID states that the Investigating Officer has made enquiries with the investors and admitted having received amounts which are mentioned in the first column of the Exhibit  1 . He, however, submitted that part of the amounts has been received by the investors. 8. Shri Saraogi, the learned Senior Counsel 4 appearing on behalf of the Respondents 2 to 100 submits that the said amounts have been received by way of full and final settlement of the amounts claimed by these Respondents. The provisions of the MPID Act have been quashed by this Court by its Full Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.5186 of 2001 in the case of Vijay C. Pulja vs.State of Maharashtra. The Government, however, preferred an SLP in the Apex Court and the Apex Court was pleased to grant leave. However, the following interim order has been passed: Heard both sides. In view of the amount involved in the various transactions and the number of prosecutions launched under the provisions of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1999, we grant interim stay in the following In cases where investigations are in progress the prosecuting agency shall continue with the investigation. But there shall not be further prosecutions of the accused persons and as regards pending cases the status quo as on today shall be maintained. It is submitted that in 9 cases already accused persons 5 have been convicted and the convicted persons would be at liberty to apply for bail and the court would be at liberty to pass order granting bail. The interim attachment granted by the competent authority shall subsist until further orders. However, in cases where applications for release of attachment have been filed the same should be disposed of in accordance with law by separate orders. There shall not be sale of attached properties. The Authorities shall not take any coercive steps to recover the amount under the Act. Issue notice in IA Nos.6-10 returnable within a period of four weeks. Permission granted for filing appeals. Counter affidavit shall be filed within four weeks. The convicted and the under-trials be released on bail. 9. From the aforesaid order, it is apparent that no stay has been granted by the Apex Court to the operation of the judgment and order passed by this 6 Court. However, certain directions have been given. The Apex Court has observed that the authorities shall not take any coercive steps to recover the amount under the Act. A direction is also given by the Apex Court that there shall not be further prosecutions of the accused persons and as regards pending cases the status quo as on today shall be maintained. There is however, no direction that in cases where parties have resolved the dispute, the complaint should not be quashed. 10. Ordinarily, when the petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is stated that the parties have settled the dispute even if the case is not compoundable under the provisions of section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the power of High Court to quash the complaint under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not curtailed or limited and if this Court is satisfied that it is in best interest of both the parties and that quashing of the complaint is not against the public policy, this Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash the complaint. However, when a complaint is filed under MPID Act, the other investors who are also duped in a similar manner can also lodge their claim so that out of the sale 7 proceeds of the attached properties, they can receive the amount in the ratio in which the said amount was invested by them. It is also possible even after the complaint is filed, other investors may lodge their claim at the subsequent stage and there no bar of limitation under the MPID Act for such investors to lodge their claim. 11. This being the position, the complaint filed by one of the investors alone cannot be quashed and set aside since there is every possibility that the other investors may file their complaint at the subsequent stage. The provisions of the MPID Act have been declared to be vires of the Constitution of India by this Court and there is no stay to the judgment and order of this Court. Since the Act itself is not in existence and is a subject matter of challenge in the Apex Court, the short question which calls for consideration is whether this petition can be entertained for quashing the said complaint. 12. Shri Saraogi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 100 and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner herein state that there are no other investors and these are the only investors who have invested their hard-earned money with the Petitioner and since 2002 these are 8 the only persons who have come forward, alleging that the Petitioner had committed the said offence under the MPID Act r/w. the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Be that as it may, at the highest the complaint which is filed by the these Respondents can be quashed. Liberty, however, is granted to the prosecution to revive the complaint, if any further complaints are received in respect of the said allegations and representation made by the Petitioner. In the present case, the Respondents have received their amount in full and final settlement of their claim. If the matter remains pending in the Trial Court in view of the order passed by the Apex Court, the attached properties cannot be sold during the pendency of the SLP in the Apex Court and as a result, the Respondent nos.2 to 100 may not receive their money immediately in near future. 14. Taking into consideration the fact that the investors have received their due shares and since they have no objection for quashing of the complaint, in my view, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice, subject to certain condition being imposed, to quash the complaint. In the result, the petition is allowed. The complaint which is 9 registered with the V.P. Marg Police Station vide C.R. No. 312 of 2002 dated 15.11.2002 for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code r/w. section 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999 which was later on transferred to E.O.W. vide C.R. No. 96 of 2002 which is registered for the same offences, is quashed and set aside. It is however, clarified that if any investor files a complaint against the present Petitioner, the said complaint shall be revived. However, that shall be subject to the interim order passed by the Apex Court. So far as the attached properties are concerned, the properties shall be remain attached subject to further orders being passed by the Apex Court in the pending SLP. In view of the quashing of the complaint, the Petitioner shall be released forthwith. In the meanwhile, the police may, subject to interim order passed by the Apex Court, take appropriate steps. (V.M. KANADE J.)