IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 283 OF 2009 Mahendra Vakhatchand Gandi ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent --- Shri A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b. O.A. Siddiqui / R. Rathod for Applicant Shri D.P. Adsule, APP for State Shri I.A. Bagaria for Interveners Shri Girish Kulkarni i/b. M/s. Markand Gandhi & Co. for Pramod P.Shah- Contesting Party. Shri Dilshad S. Bohre for Defendant No.6 ---- ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.51 OF 2009 Mahendra Vakhatchand Gandi ...Applicant Vs. Praful Ramanlal Shah & Anr .. Respondents --- Shri Rajendra Rathod i/b. Ms. Shital Shah for Applicant Shri D.P. Adsule, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 3RD APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. These two applications have been filed by the Applicant for anticipatory bail and for cancellation of bail. 2. Original Criminal Application no.283 of 2009 is for anticipatory bail and criminal application No.51 of 2009 is for cancellation of bail. 3. Leave to amend is granted. The Applicant shall carry out the amendment and add a prayer for quashing of both the criminal complaints. The draft amendment is tendered in the Court. Amendment application is allowed. Amendment to be carried out during the course of the day. 4. Brief facts are that a complaint No.MECR 11 of 2008 was filed by Mahendra V. Gandhi who is the Applicant in both the applications against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Application No.51 of 2009. Similarly Respondent No.1 in Application No.51 had filed a complaint vide FIR No.95 of 2008 against Mahendra Gandhi and his family members. During the course of arguments, a suggestion has been made by this Court that both the parties should try to explore the possibility of settlement since both the parties are relatives and they are partners of the firm and, fortunately, both the parties have now amicably settled the dispute and they have now filed the Consent Terms. 5. The Consent Terms are taken on record and marked 'X' and 'X-1' for the purpose of identification. Though both these consent terms are identical, They are filed separately in both these applications. They have also filed affidavit in support of the consent terms. Apart from these consent terms, the Applicant has also settled the civil suit which is pending in this Court vide Suit No.515 of 2009. Consent Terms are marked 'Y' for the purpose of identification and are taken on record. All parties to the suit as well as to the applications are present in the Court through their respective Counsel. It is submitted that since the dispute is settled, the criminal proceedings initiated by both the parties against each other may also be quashed. 6. This Court has passed an order on 2nd April, 2009 and asked the parties to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice so that this Court would also entertain an application for quashing of the criminal complaints. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to allow the preacipe filed by the Applicant herein and passed the order dated 2nd April, 2009. In view of the consent terms which have filed and the dispute being amicably settled, both the complaints being C.R. No.11 of 2008 registered by L.T. Marg Police Station and FIR No.95 of 2005 registered by EOW Unit II, Mumbai which was original registered vide C.R. No.273 of 2008 by L.T. Marg Police Station are hereby quashed. Since these complaints are quashed, the application for grant of anticipatory bail does not survive. However, by order dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by this Court, interim protection was granted it is clarified that the Applicant shall not be arrested in connection with C.R. No.95 of 2008 registered by Respondent No.2 and subsequently transferred to EOW Unit II and the interim order has become final. It is further clarified that the parties shall file consent terms in the civil suit. Undertaking given by them to file consent terms is accepted. 7. Though these offences are non-compoundable, in my view, in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merhant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, this Court has the jurisdiction to quash the complaint even though they are non-compoundable. In the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Apex Court has held that the inherent power of this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not limited or restricted by virtue of the bar imposes on the Trial Court under section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, merely because a case is non-compoundable, that would not put a fetter on the inherent power of this Court to quash a complaint. A similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merhant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, in para 24 , the question which was urged for the Court is as under: “24. It was urged that all the ingredients of the offences committed under Sections 468 and 471 as also Section 420 IPC are made out in the charge-sheet, and hence, even if the matter was compromised between the parties, the criminal proceedings could not be compounded on that basis since the offences involved also include non-compoundable offences.” In para 27, the Apex Court has answered the said question in the following manner: “27. Having carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of learned counsel in regard thereto, we are of the view that, although, technically there is force in the submissions made by the learned additional Solicitor General, the facts of the case warrant interference in these proceedings.” In para 28, the judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the case has been followed with approval and in paragraph 31, the Apex Court has finally observed as under: “31. On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi case2 and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technically should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” Since in this case the dispute is between the private parties, who are partners of the firm, the allegations and counter allegations have been made against each other and, thereafter, civil suit was also pending and now all the parties have amicably settled the dispute. There is no reason why the prosecution is lodged against each other. I am satisfying that both the parties have amicably settled the said dispute and no other third party is involved in the said dispute and, therefore, this is a fit case by quashing both the complaints by inherent power of this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Shri Kulkarni appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff-Pramod P. Shah in Suit No.515 of 2009 undertakes to file Vakalatnama within one week from today. V.M. KANADE J.