1 261211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2612 OF 2011 Harsh J. Nahata & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Rajendra Sorankar for the Petitioners Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P., for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Rahul Moghe for Respondent No. 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND P.D. KODE, JJ DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P., for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Rahul Moghe, advocate for respondent No. 2, waive service. 2 261211 3. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up forthwith for final disposal. 4. This petition is filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 44 of 2011 registered with the Economic Offences Wing, G.B.C.B., CID, Mumbai, for offence punishable under Section 409 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the said F.I.R. on the assertion that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 has been amicably settled. Respondent No. 2 is represented by advocate, and has no objection for quashing of F.I.R., as that is the pre-condition for settlement arrived at between the parties. 5. The learned A.P.P., however, submits that the offence is a non-compoundable offence, and the F.I.R. ought not to be quashed. It is, however, noticed from the contents of the F.I.R. that the dispute was only a personal one and between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. It arose on account of some business transaction between them. It does not involve public policy. Further, the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 is not under undue pressure at all. That position has been re-stated by the counsel for respondent No. 2 before the Court. 3 261211 6. In our opinion, therefore, quashing of F.I.R. to secure the ends of justice in the fact situation of the present case is appropriate. Merely because the offence in question is non-compoundable, that does not take away the power of the Court to quash the F.I.R. in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) is a party, in the case of Nari Motiram Hira v. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 995 of 2010, decided on February 3, 2011, has answered similar objection taken by the learned A.P.P. 8. Taking over all view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, to secure the ends of justice, considering the fact that the dispute was essentially between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 out of business transaction and does not have any characteristic of public policy, we accede to the joint request of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 to quash the F.I.R. in question. 4 261211 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Rule is made absolute. 10. We place on record the statement of the learned A.P.P. that, besides the incident referred to in the F.I.R., no other incident is reported against the petitioners for similar or any other criminal offence. 11. The counsel for the petitioners has handed over Pay Order bearing No. 289295 dated 25th August, 2011 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Fort, Mumbai, payable in favour of respondent No. 2 in the sum of Rs.1 crore. That Pay Order has been accepted by the counsel for respondent No. 2. In that view of the matter, all financial liability of the petitioners qua respondent No. 2 is settled. P.D. KODE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.