IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1959 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.1959 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.1959 OF 2007 SUKHRAJ B. NAHAR, AGE 50, ] OCCU. BUSINESS, PARTNER OF ] NAHAR ENTERPRISES, A REGISTERED ] PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE ] AT NAHAR’S AMRIT SHAKTI ] CHANDIVALI FARM ROAD, ] OPPOSITE SAKI VIHAR ROAD, ] NEAR CHANDIWALI FILM STUDIO ] ANDHERI (E),MUMBAI -72 ] ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ] AT THE INSTANCE OF ECONOMIC ] OFFENCES WING, UNIT-II, ] MUMBAI VIDE CR.NO.85/2006 ] 2. KRISHNA SHANKAR ] 3. VIJAYA SHANKAR BOTH RESIDENT ] OF C-204, MAGNOLIA ENCLAVE ] NAHAR AMRITSHAKTI CHANDIVALI ] ANDHERI(E),MUMBAI -72 ] ...RESPONDENTS. SHRI S.N.GORWADKAR ADV.FOR THE APPLICANT. SHRI H.J.DEDIA, APP FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1. SHRI ABHIJIT SALVE I/B. O.A.SIDDIQUI & R. RATHOD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2 & 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND SRI SRI SRI A.A. SAYED, JJ. A.A. SAYED, JJ. A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : JANUARY 24, 2008. : JANUARY 24, 2008. : JANUARY 24, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR bearing CR No. 85 of 2006 registered with the Economic Offences Wing -II, Mumbai, on the ground that the dispute which was sought to be raised in the complaint was of civil nature and even the complainant had filed Civil Suit for recovery of the alleged amount being Suit No. 2724/2006. It is further the case of the petitioner that in any case the grievance of the complainant no more subsists as the amount which was claimed by the complainant has already been paid to the complainant and the complainant had even withdrawn the said Suit on 25th October, 2007. Besides it is his further case that the complainant is no more interested in pursuing the matter. 4. Upon issuance of the notice to the respondents, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No-2, the original complainant has stated that the respondent No.2 has already received the amount due from and payable by the petitioner and that the complaint was filed on account of some misunderstanding on the part of the complainant and that the complainant- respondent No.2 is no more interested in pursuing the matter and wants to withdraw the complaint. 5. The learned APP has stated that in the facts and circumstances that the parties have settled the matter and the complainant no more desires to pursue the matter, the State has no objection if the matter is allowed to be settled. 6. The FIR dated 19th August, 2006 undoubtedly is in relation to the offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Of Flats Act. At the same time it is to be seen that the complainant- respondent No.2 had also filed Civil Suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 35 lac which the petitioner allegedly owed to the respondent No.1 on account of the agreement arrived at between the parties and referred to in letter dated 18th April, 2005 alongwith 12th of May and 26th of June, 2006. It is also a matter of fact that the said Suit has been withdrawn on 25th October, 2007, pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties and filed in the Civil Court in the Suit. Considering the facts alleged in plaint in the said Suit, obviously it is a dispute of civil nature as is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner. Considering that aspect of the matter, the petitioner is justified in seeking to quash the impugned FIR. However, the matter also reveals that the respondent No.2, on the strength of the criminal complaint filed and the FIR registered, alongwith the Suit filed by the complainant for recovery of the amount, was able to get the Suit disposed of without being required to establish his claim by leading the evidence and consequently he has even asked for refund of the court fees paid by him in the Suit. In other words, the respondent No.2 has been able to recover the amount without paying the necessary court fees with the use of the investigation machinery in the matter in hand and knowingly or unknowingly the petitioner has co-operated with the respondent No.2 in securing the said amount without payment of the court fees. In the circumstances, the question of quashing the FIR without the Government Revenue being secured, does not arise. If in such circumstances the criminal proceedings are allowed to be quashed merely because the parties have arrived at settlement subsequent to the filing of the complaint and on recovery of the amount by adopting the arm twisting method under the strength of criminal case against the party, it would send a wrong message and lay down a bad precedent and, therefore, it was informed to the parties that unless the Government Revenue is secured in relation to the amount recovered, the question of quashing of FIR would not arise. 7. The petitioner has also volunterred and expressed readiness to ensure the Government Revenue by paying necessary Court Fee Stamps in relation to the amount recovered by the respondent No.2 and has filed an affidavit alongwith the requisite court fee stamps. We accept the said court fee stamps. 8. In the above circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner has willingly tendered the amount in the form of court fee stamps, which was otherwise payable in relation to the amount recovered in the said Suit filed by the respondent No.2 and withdrawn on 25th October, 2007 and considering the dispute disclosed in the impugned FIR is of civil nature, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly while accepting the court fee stamps. 10. The Nazir (Pay and Accounts Department) of the High Court to certify the cancellation of the court fee stamps. [ Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [Sri [Sri [Sri A.A.Sayed, J.] A.A.Sayed, J.] A.A.Sayed, J.]