1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.431 OF 2010 Hemal Shantilal Jhaveri .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.H.H.Ponda for applicant Mr.S.P.Kadam for applicant No.2 Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9th February 2010. P.C.: 1] The application for compounding the offences allegedly committed and punishable under section 406 and 420 of IPC has been rejected by the Magistrate and that is how, this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., by the original complainant. It is stated that the dispute was about jewellery articles. It is alleged that the accused received the jewellery articles from the complainant and misappropriated so also converted them. There are persons claiming to be in possession of stolen property and details thereof are also mentioned. 2 2] Subsequently upon an application by the complainant, the jewellery the articles were returned to him on his furnishing a supurtnama. Now all the original jewellery articles are in possession of the complainant. Further, it was agreed between parties that one of the person to whom accused has allegedly sold the jewellery articles would return the same to the complainant and in lieu thereof, the accused would pay a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs to the said Receiver. After the amount was paid, it was accepted in full and final settlement by the Receiver, the jewellery articles have come back in possession of the complainant and the accused so also the Receiver and the complainant have no claims against each other. 3] In the light of the amendments made to the Cr.P.C., and more particularly making the offences punishable under section 420 and 406 compoundable, that the complainant applied for compounding of offences. The Learned APP appearing in the case earlier objected to compounding of the offences under section 406 of IPC but subsequently, the amendments being brought to his notice, conveyed his no objection. 4] All parties to the compromise filed their respective say and appeared before the court and confirmed the arrangement arrived at by 3 them. Yet, the learned Magistrate refused the permission to compound the offence by holding that the grounds for compounding are not just and bonafide. In paras 6 and 7 of the said order dated 13th January 2010 read thus:- “6. In Notice No.124/N/2008, 125/N/2008, 126/N/2008 and 127/N/2008 in C.R.No.14/2007, the complainant has filed an application for permission to sell the property recovered by the police in this crime and which is given to him as per interim order. The accused opposed the application by way of filing reply dated 4/9/2008 and Sunny Ali Akbar Azdarz has given no objection by filing reply dated 7/8/2008, Mr.Chagan Chunilal Varma has also given no objection to sell the property by way of filing Reply dated 4/9/2008. Receiver Aveesh Aagbotwala opposed the application by way of filing reply dated 4/9/2008. “7. Considering facts and circumstances and the nature of offences and the property involved and recovered worth Rs.2.09 Crores and alleged full and final settlement for Rs.24 lakhs only with receiver Aveesh Aagbotwala and the grounds mentioned in the application for permission to compound the case u/section 320 of Cr.P.C., I hold that the grounds are not just and bonafide. The receiver of the property and the accused had previously opposed the claim of the complainant for return of the property and also to grant the permission to sell the property recovered in this case. The receivers are not party to the compromise. No documents produced in support of compromise.” 5] My attention is invited by Mr.Ponda and Mr.Kadam to the say filed by the prosecution in the trial court so also the contents of the application 4 made under section 452 of the Cr.P.C. The said application records the complete compromise and below the same, each one of them including the third person Receiver Mr.Agbotwala have placed their signature. Admittedly, this application is made on 24th December 2009. The contents of para 6 of the impugned order record the events preceding the making of this application. While it is true that on some occasion, there was opposition to the compounding of offence but subsequently all parties appearing, confirmed the arrangement and gave their no objection for offences being compounded. 6] Having perused the application and the annexures thereto, including relevant statutory provision, I am of the opinion that the complaint was made on account of a private dispute between two business persons. The articles were jewellery articles which were handed over during the course of business but not accounted and appropriated for. Such a complaint essentially projects dispute between two private parties and that too businessmen. There would not be any public interest or public policy at stake in these peculiar facts and confirmation of the settlement terms so also the no objection of APP appearing in the trial court, ought to have been taken into account and the learned Magistrate 5 should have permitted compounding of the offences. In the peculiar facts of this case and without in any manner laying down any general rule, it is directed that in the light of the statements and the no objection of all concerned parties so also there being no claims for release of the property, it is directed that offences stand compounded. The case No.CR 14 of 2007 resulting in Court Case No.478/PW/2007 shall stand disposed of as it is directed that all offences stand compounded. The application is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) by consent of parties. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)