1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION NO.261 OF 2010 (Sharad Gangadhar Shringarpawar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another) WITH CRI. APPLICATION NO.598 OF 2010 (Purushottam s/o Biseserlal Chirawawala ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another) WITH CRI. APPLICATION NO.2648 OF 2008 (Sharad Gangadhar Shringarpawar and another ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.R. Chhabra, Advocate for the applicant, Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for non-applicant No.1, Shri S.R. Dewani, Advocate for respondent No.2. (In Cri. Application No.261 of 2010) Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the applicant, Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for non-applicant No.1, Shri S.R. Dewani, Advocate for respondent No.2. (In Cri. Application No.598 of 2010) Shri R.R. Chhabra, Advocate for the applicant, Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for non-applicant No.1, Shri S.R. Dewani, Advocate for respondent No.2. (In Cri. Application No.2648 of 2008) Mr. Manish, Mr. Purushottam Chirawawala and Mr. Sharad Shringarawar are present in person. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI , J. DATE : JULY 13, 2011 These three petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same chargesheet filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nagpur. Criminal Application No.2648 of 2008 had been filed by petitioner Sharad Gangadhar Shringarpawar with a prayer that F.I.R. No.101 of 2008 filed by respondent No.2 Manish Chirawawala at Dhantoli Police Station might be quashed. Similarly Criminal Application No.598 of 2010 has been filed by petitioner Mr. Purushottam Chirawawala with a similar prayer for quashing Regular Criminal Case No. 4141 of 2009 arising out of said F.I.R. No.101/2008. In view of filing of the said charge sheet, the petitioner Sharad Shringarpawar in Criminal Application No.2648 of 2008 has filed 2 another application being Criminal Application No.261 of 2010 for quashing the said Regular Criminal Case No.4141 of 2009. It may be stated the petitioners Shri Purushottam Chirawawala and Shri Shringarpawar and one Sukhdeo Babuji Sarode are the accused in Regular Criminal Case No.4141/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said charge sheet has been filed after completion of investigation of FIR No.101/2008 of Dhantoli Police Station filed by the Respondent No.2 Mr. Manish Chirawawala. The charges against the petitioner and the said Sukhdeo are for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The main dispute is between petitioner Mr. Purushottam Chirawawala and his son Respondent No.2 Mr. Manish Chirawawala. The dispute is in respect of 50% share of the property situated at 96, Dhantoli, Nagpur. The owner of the said 50% of the said property is Mr. Purushottam Chirawawala. Remaining 50% belongs to respondent No.2 Manish Chirawawala. It is seen that some proceedings were pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal at Nagpur. In those proceedings said 50% property of 96, Dhantoli, Nagpur belonging to the petitioner Mr. Purushottam Chirawawala was under attachment. Union Bank of India, it is stated, has a charge over the said property. The Bank obviously is interested in recovery of the amount. When these three applications came up for hearing before me on 17th June, 2011, I found that the main dispute was between father and son. It was felt that the dispute could be resolved by amicable settlement. It was, therefore, suggested to the parties that it was in their interest to resolve the dispute amicably so that the parties can save their time, money and energy. Fortunately the parties agreed to consider the suggestion given by the Court and they have now resolved the whole dispute by amicable settlement. The petitioner Mr. Purushottam Chirawawala 3 and the Respondent Mr. Manish Chirawawala have agreed to do whatever is stated in the consent terms. The consent terms are placed before me and a copy of the same be taken on record and be marked “X” for identification. The learned Advocate Mr. Chhabra is present along with petitioner Mr. Sharad Shringarpawar. Advocate Mr. Vandan Gadkari is present along with Bank Officer Mr. Murli Krishnan. They both have gone through the consent terms. All the parties are satisfied with the contents of the consent terms. The learned counsel for the parties and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Mirza have stated that in view of the amicable settlement of the dispute, it is in the interest of justice that this Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nagpur vide Regular Criminal Case No.4141/2009. At this stage, it may be stated here that the respondent Mr. Manish Chirawawala had alleged that his father petitioner Purushottam Chirawawala and Bank Officers including petitioner Mr. Shringarpawar in furtherance of their common intention had forged his signature on a document which was produced before the Civil Court. Without going to the merits of these allegations, it is noted by this Court that the whole dispute, in fact, has arisen due to the dispute over the property. Since the property dispute is amicably settled and the disputant parties are mainly father and son, it is advisable that the proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class shall not continue any more. The applicant Mr. Purushottam Chirawawala is aged 68 years and he is mainly staying at Mumbai. F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2008. As on today there is no progress in the trial. In view of the amicable settlement of the main dispute with regard to the property, the parties obviously will lose interest in the case pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. This is an additional reason that I am inclined to consider the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Moreover, respondent No.2 Manish himself has stated 4 in the consent terms that he is no more interested in prosecuting the case pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. As a result of compliance of consent terms, the Bank will also get its dues without further indulging in any litigation. Learned Advocates Mr. R.M. Bhangde and Mr. Vandan Gadkari have relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported at 2008 CRI. L.J. 2243 and in Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I., reported at AIR 2009 SC 428 to bring home the point that in the present circumstances the best course open to this Court is to put an end to the proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Mirza has also submitted that in view of the amicable settlement of the main dispute, the interest of justice requires that the criminal prosecution shall be put to an end. He has submitted that this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure the ends of justice in peculiar circumstances of the case as well as considering the age and ill- health of Mr. Purushottam Chirawawala. In this regard it is noted by the Court that the Bank Officers had allegedly acted in the capacity of Bank Officer and not in their personal capacity. Though the accused No.2 Sukhdeo Sarode is not a petitioner before this Court, there is no reason to continue the proceedings against him only. Before parting with the judgment and final order it need not be stated here that the parties will abide by the consent terms, a copy of which is taken on record. This Court hopes and trusts that there will be no impediment in following the consent terms and putting an end to the dispute as early as possible. For the reasons stated herein above, I pass the following order : 5 i) Regular Criminal Case No.4141/2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nagpur shall stand quashed. It follows that F.I.R. No.101/2008 also stands quashed. ii) All the accused in the said charge sheet stand discharged. iii) There bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. The said three Criminal Applications are disposed of accordingly. Steno copy of this order be furnished to all the parties as per rules. JUDGE RR