* 1 * Cri.Appln. 5656.2010 15.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5656 OF 2010 Juned Mohammed Hanif Chunawala and anr. .......Applicants V/S. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State-respondent no.1 None for respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 15th February, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is a joint application filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code by the complainant and the accused for quashing of the FIR i.e. MECR No.4 of 2010 of Amboli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506(ii) Indian Penal Code. The application is filed on the ground that the applicants * 2 * Cri.Appln. 5656.2010 15.2.2011 have since settled the dispute and applicant no.2 is no longer interested in pursuing the complaint. The application, however, is opposed by the State. 2. On 16th November, 2009 applicant no.2 filed private complaint being 342/MISC/2009 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri against applicant no.1 alleging that applicant no.1 had given a false promise of sending him to London for work. Applicant no.1 had claimed that he did the work of preparing work permit and sending people abroad for work. At the relevant time, i.e. January, 2007 he had an offer of sending 150-200 persons to London for work. He had told applicant no.2 that the entire process of obtaining the necessary documents would be completed within a period of 3 to 4 months as the officer working at London Embassy was going to retire within that period and within the period of 3 to 4 months he had to sent all the 150-200 persons to London. Applicant no.1 is also alleged to have boasted that he was well-acquainted with one, Yunusbhai staying in London who was the main person in the activity and applicant no.1 was handling all the hawala matters’ of ‘ Yunusbhai in the State of Maharashtra and Gujarat. Applicant no.1 * 3 * Cri.Appln. 5656.2010 15.2.2011 demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from applicant no.2 for making the arrangements. On 1st January, 2007 applicant no.2 paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to applicant no.2 in acknowledgment of which he was given zerox of the receipt dated 10th March, 2007. In order to raise that money applicant no.2 had taken loans from friends and relatives. The receipt apart from acknowledging the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- also mentioned that the remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was to be received on 30th June, 2007. Thereafter, applicant no.1 failed to keep his word and make the necessary arrangements for applicant no.2 to go to London for work. When the friends and relatives of applicant no.2 started demanding repayment of the advances made by them, applicant no.2 sent his family members to the native place and sold the residential premises. Thereafter, whenever applicant no.2 visited applicant no. 1 he used to be given a promise that the work would be done. When applicant no.2 became insistent, on 12th December, 2008 applicant no.1 paid him a sum of Rs.50,000/- by cheque and stated that the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was forfeited by him. He further threatened that if any demand was made for balance amount * 4 * Cri.Appln. 5656.2010 15.2.2011 applicant no.2 and his family would be killed. Applicant no.2 then complained to Amboli Police Station. He also complained to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Mumbai, Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, the Home Minister and office of DCB CID, Mumbai. When no action was taken by the police, he filed a private complaint and requested for directions under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the police to make investigation into the complaint and registere the FIR against applicant no.1. The learned Magistrate gave directions for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code pursuant to which the FIR came to be registered. Applicant no.1 was arrested and later released on bail. 3. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the applicants, submits that, as per the mutual understanding and amicable settlement arrived at between the applicants, applicant no.1 has paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to applicant no.2 by pay order dated 7th December, 2010. In view of the settlement, applicant no.2 no longer has any grievance against applicant no.1 but as the complaint under Section 506(II) is not compoundable, the applicants have been constrained to file this application invoking inherent powers vested in this Court * 5 * Cri.Appln. 5656.2010 15.2.2011 under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the proceedings. He relies upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot V/s. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC page 582 and Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2008) 9 SCC page 677 and several orders passed by this court on similar applications filed for quashing of the proceedings involving offences not compoundable, but, where amicable settlement had been arrived at. In the first decision, the Apex Court observed as follows : We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that any “ dispute where a question involved is of purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter 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 law.” 4. In the second decision, the Apex Court on similar application had taken note of its earlier decisions in the case of B.S. Joshi V/s. State of Haryana reported in (2003)4 SCC page 674, and in the case of CBI V/s. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. reported in (1006) 5 SCC page 591. Then, while considering the arguments advanced on * 6 * Cri.Appln. 5656.2010 15.2.2011 behalf of the learned Additional Solicitor General that in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court could not ignore any substantial statutory provision dealing with the subject. The Apex Court was of the view that although technically there was force in the submissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the facts of the case warranted interference in the proceedings and in the facts of that case, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quashed the proceedings in view of the compromise arrived at. 5. On careful consideration of the facts stated at paragraph-2 above, it would be difficult to hold that the dispute in the complaint is purely personal between the applicants and there is absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against applicant no.1. The nature of the activity alleged against applicant no.1, according to the prosecution is not legal. Therefore, any amount of compromise as regards the amount paid by applicant no.2 to applicant no.1 for doing the work which is not legal cannot be taken as compromise of the dispute in the complaint. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, though there is settlement * 7 * Cri.Appln. 5656.2010 15.2.2011 arrived at between the applicants as regards the monetary considerations, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Hence, the application is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]