Case: Adnan Abu Athar Bakshi &amp; Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra &amp; Another

NareshH. Patil, J.Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.2. The Application is moved for final disposal by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as the parties have settled the dispute amicably. Consent Terms are filed on record. Both the parties are before the Court and are identified by their respective counsel. Consent Terms and Verification made by the parties, namely, Adnan Abu Athar Bakshi (Applicant No.1) and Mir Irshad Ali Mir Mahammad Ali (Respondent No.2), is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification.3. It is contended by the Applicants that Applicant No.3 is a Managing Director of a Tours and Travels Company, namely, "Sky Ship International Pvt. Ltd."(For short "said company"). An agreement was executed between every Hajji and the said Company wherein the terms and conditions were incorporated to avoid any complications to Hajjis during their Hajj tour. It is submitted by the Applicants that for the year 2010 they were allotted a quota of 206 Hajjis by the External Affairs Ministry, Government of India. The estimated cost that year for the Hajj package tour was Rs.1.60 Lacs. For the year 2010 Hajj tour, Respondent No.2 - Mir Irshad Ali, invited the Applicants at Aurangabad and arranged a programme. In the said programme the Respondent No.2 introduced the said Company of Applicant No.3 as one of the best Hajj Tour Operators of India. In the year 2011, a quota of 227 Hajjis was allotted to the said Company by the Central Government. The Applicants submit that over a period from 7th July, 2011 to 29th October 2011, a total amount of Rs.1.46 Crores only was remitted by Respondent No.2 towards the cost of 100 intending Hajjis for the Hajj Tour, 2011, out of the total amount of Rs.1.64 Crores. After the return of Respondent No.2 from the Hajj tour, the Applicant No.3 has been calling up Respondent No.2 since October, 2011 for claiming balance amount of Rs.18 Lacs but Respondent No.2, on one pretext or the other, kept on avoiding to make the balance payment of Rs.18 Lacs which was due.4. A complaint was filed by Respondent No.2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 383 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. On 29th October, 2012 the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad passed an order in M.A. No.1608 of 2012, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequent to the said order, the police registered complaint against the Applicants.5. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that considering the issues raised in the Application, the Application was admitted and interim relief was granted.6. We find from the material placed on record and submissions advanced before us, that the complaint was the out-come of money transactions between the parties. The complaint was filed out of civil dispute between the parties and breach of contract.7. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties submit that for carrying out good relations, the parties have amicably settled the matter. They want to put an end to the dispute finally. The parties present in the Court, expressed their desire to settle the matter finally.8. The learned A.P.P. appearing for Respondent-State submits that some of the offences registered against the Applicants are non compoundable. But in the facts and circumstances and considering the Consent Terms filed on record, we find that the request made by the parties to quash and set aside the First Information Report registered with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, bearing M-Case No.18/2012, deserves consideration. Hence Order:

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. We find from the material placed on record and submissions advanced before us, that the complaint was theof money transactions between the parties. The complaint was filed out of civil dispute between the parties and breach ofin the facts and circumstances and considering the Consent Terms filed on record, we find that the request made by the parties to quash and set aside the First Information Report registered with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, bearingNo.18/2012, deserves consideration. Hence Order: