1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1573 OF 2008 Samar Vasudeo Raut ... Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1574 OF 2008 Mohammed Salim Yasin Belim and another. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. Mr. A.R. Pande, for the Petitioners. Mr. H.J. Dedhi, APP for State/Respondent No.1 & 2. Mr. P.M. Havnur with Ms. Tulip Mistaqqui, for the Respondent No.3. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2009. JUDGMENT:- 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. I have also heard learned APP appearing for the State/Respondent. 2 By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of the complaint filed by the third Respondent and also for quashing an order passed by the learned Magistrate on the said complaint in exercise of the powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The third respondent has alleged the commission of various offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. 3 The third respondent has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit he has stated that the grievance made in the complaint was regarding the slum 2 rehabilitation scheme relating to plots bearing CTS Nos.860 and 819, Shankarpada, Dahanukarwadi, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400067. He has stated that after the complaint was filed, there was a compromise between the petitioners and the Society of slum dwellers. He has stated that as there is a complete settlement he is not desirous of prosecuting the criminal proceedings any further. He has stated that as a result of the complaint, a slum rehabilitation scheme involving about 400 slum dwellers was affected. He has stated that in view of the settlement between all the concerned parties and keeping in mind the larger interests of the slum dwellers, he has decided not to proceed with the prosecution. 4 The learned APP has opposed the prayer for quashing on the basis of compromise by the petitioners and the third respondent. His opposition is on the ground that as the third respondent had set the police machinery in motion, the investigating machinery had to spend time, money and energy on the process of investigation. 5 In view of aforesaid submission made on the last date, the third respondent offered to pay a donation of a sum of Rs.1 Lac to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. Accordingly, he has paid the said amount. 6 On the perusal of the complaint filed by the third respondent, it appears that complaint essentially contains allegations regarding illegalities in the project of redevelopment of a slum area. As stated earlier, the third respondent himself has stated that now there is a complete settlement between all the parties concerned and the slum redevelopment scheme involving 400 slum dwellers should be implemented. 7 In the city of Mumbai, there are large number of disputes in connection with the slum redevelopment schemes. One such dispute led to the filing of the present complaint by the third respondent and the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In view of the settlement and in view of the fact that a slum redevelopment scheme involving more than 400 slum dwellers needs to be implemented, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, it must be added that in the 3 matter like this the learned Magistrate ought to have been very cautious while exercising the power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Magistrate while exercising the power has to keep in mind that an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 entails serious consequences. An offence registered on the basis of such order and the Police machinery, which is otherwise heavily burdened, is required to investigate into the offences alleged. 8 Hence, I pass the following order:- (i) The complaint subject matter of this petition as well as the order dated 21st June 2008 passed thereon are hereby quashed. As a result, the FIR registered on the basis of the order passed on the complaint is also quashed. (ii) Petitions are allowed on the above terms. JUDGE 4 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1573 OF 2008 Samar Vasudeo Raut ... Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1574 OF 2008 Mohammed Salim Yasin Belim and another. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. Mr. A.R. Pande, for the Petitioners. Mr. H.J. Dedhi, APP for State/Respondent No.1 & 2. Mr. P.M. Havnur with Ms. Tulip Mistaqqui, for the Respondent No.3. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1 For the reasons recorded separately in the judgment, the following order is passed:- (i) The complaint subject matter of this petition as well as the order dated 21st June 2008 passed thereon are hereby quashed. As a result, the FIR registered on the basis of the order passed on the complaint is also quashed. (ii) Petitions are allowed on the above terms. JUDGE