1 (Appln 882 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 882 OF 2010 Mehar Guruswarup Shrivastava ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ----- Mr.Girish Kulkarni for Petitioner Mr. J.P. Kharge -APP for the State Mr. Ramesh Tiwari i/b. Bagla Dandekar & Co. for Intervener. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 23rd March, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State. 2. This petition is filed by the Petitioner for quashing of FIR dated 8th September, 2009 which is registered with the Economic Offences Wing vide. C.R. No. 41 of 2009 for the offences under section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 had alleged that a false representation was made by the Petitioner herein and pursuant to the said 2 (Appln 882 of 2010) representation, certain earnest monies were advanced to the Petitioner and later on it transpired that the proposal for sale could not take place since according to the Complainant, the title of the property was not clear and marketable. A complaint under section 438 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was also filed by the Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner that dishonour of cheques which were given by the Petitioner to the Respondents. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties arrived at the settlement and the Petitioner repaid the entire amount which was claimed by the Respondent No.2 and as a result, the criminal case which was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was compounded and the Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the Complainant and quashed the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by his order dated 25.2.2011. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 also filed the consent terms in this writ petition which were taken on record. In the consent terms, in paragraph 4, the Complainant who has filed an intervention application in the petition has stated that he does not have any objection if the criminal complaint filed by him against the Petitioner is quashed. The matter, thereafter, appeared before Sister Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota J. on 4th 3 (Appln 882 of 2010) February, 2011 who was pleased to direct that the matter should be placed before this Court and, accordingly, the office has placed this matter before me. 4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the relief claimed by the Petitioner for quashing the criminal complaint. It is submitted that one other person was also cheated by the Petitioner. It is submitted that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the Petitioner in causing gain himself and wrongly loss to the Respondent No.2. Therefore, it is submitted that this is not a fit case where the complaint is quashed. He, however, candidly, after taken instructions from Investigating Officer who is present in the Court, submitted that the said person has not filed any complaint against the present Petitioner. 5. The offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable, with the leave of the Court and since chargesheet was not filed, the Petitioner had directly filed this petition for quashing the FIR and during the pendency of the this writ petition, the parties filed the consent terms. The Apex Court in several cases has held that if the dispute between the parties is personal one and dispute is settled then in that case, the High Court while exercising its inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of the 4 (Appln 882 of 2010) Constitution of India can quash the petition if the Complainant has filed his no objection. The Apex Court has further held that even if a complaint is non- compoundable as per the provisions of the section 320 of the Cr.P.C., even then the inherent power of the High Court for quashing a complaint is not restricted or limited by the restrictions imposed upon the Magistrate for compounding a case under section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Anr.[AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1986], Jagdish Chanana vs. State of Haryana and Anr. [AIR 2008 S.C. 1969] and Mandan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2009 S.C. 1969] have held that it is always open for the High Court in such a situation to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash the complaint. Since no willful purpose would be served in keeping the complaint pending and since if the complainant has no objection ultimately the case would held up in acquittal. In view of the ratio of the judgments would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The consent terms are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for the purpose of identification. 6. The objection taken by the learned APP for the State is without any substance. It is an admitted position that the said person who has given his statement that he was 5 (Appln 882 of 2010) also cheated by the Petitioner, has not filed a separate complaint. Admittedly, so far the chargesheet has not been filed, though the complaint was registered in 2009. The said submissions, therefore, cannot be accepted. It is always open for the Investigating Officer to investigate any fresh complaint if filed against the Petitioner by any other person. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and is disposed of. 7. After the FIR was registered initially with Santacruz Vimantal Police Station, it was registered vide C.R. No. 41 of 2009 and later on transferred to the Economic Offences Wing and it was renumbered as 53 of 2009. Accordingly, both the complaints are quashed and petition is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE J.)