Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2003 (BOM)

Pramod Vasant Trimbakar v. State of Maharashtra

2012-10-16

A.S.OKA, SADHANA S.JADHAV

body2012
JUDGMENT A.S.OKA, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. We have heard learned APP for the State. Rule. The concerned respondents waive service. Taken up forthwith for final hearing. 2. The petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.4, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the proceedings on the basis of C.R. No. 92 of 2009 registered with Santacruz Police Station for the offences under Sections 465, 420, 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the 2nd respondent lodged the report in his capacity as the Director of Housing Development Infrastructure Ltd. (HDIL) as is clear from the complaint on the basis of which offence was registered. He invited our attention to the order passed by the Apex Court on 27th September 2010 in Civil Appeal No.9460 of 2010 filed by HDIL to which accused No.1 was the first respondent. He pointed out the consent terms filed before the Apex Court, and in particular, clause 11 thereof in which it is recorded that the appellant and respondent Nos. 2(a) to 8 before the Apex Court shall not take any steps to pursue or prosecute any legal proceedings which may have been initiated by them or any of them against respondent No.1 or respondent No.17 in relation to the Deed of Conveyance dated 20th November, 1979 unless compelled in law or by any Court or authority competent in this regard. Our attention has also been invited to clause 5 of the order passed by the Apex Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that in view of the solemn assurance given by HDIL, now the prosecution cannot continue. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent stated that in view of the settlement reached between the parties before the Apex Court, the 2nd respondent has agreed not to pursue criminal complaint filed against 1st accused. The learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent states that in view of the order of the Apex Court, he does not desire to pursue the FIR as against the petitioner and other accused. The learned APP has submitted that investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed and therefore no interference can be made. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. The learned APP has submitted that investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed and therefore no interference can be made. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions. We have perused the complaint on the basis of which the first information report was registered. As stated earlier, the first information report was registered at the instance of the 2nd respondent on behalf of HDIL. It is alleged that on 13th November, 2007 and 25th August 2008, the said company purchased undivided shares in the property in question. In the complaint, a reference is made to the documents of title in relation to the property. It is stated that it was revealed that the accused No.1 purported to purchase the property from Arjandas Meghraj Thakur by a document dated 20th November, 1979 and the said document was registered on 3rd June, 2004. It is alleged that the document dated 20th November, 1979 is bogus. 6. At this stage, we may make reference to the consent terms filed before the Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition to which HDIL was the petitioner-appellant. The 1st respondent before the Apex Court was accused No.1. In clause 11 of the consent terms, it is stated thus :- The Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2(a) to 8 agree that they shall not take any steps to pursue or prosecute, in any manner, any legal proceedings which may have been initiated by them or any of them against the Respondent No.1 or th Respondent No.17 in connection with or relating to the Deed of Conveyance dated 20th November 1979 unless compelled in law or by any court or authority competent in this regard. On the basis of the said consent terms, the Apex Court passed the aforesaid order dated 27th October, 2010. The Apex Court has referred to the terms of settlement produced before it. The parties agreed that registration of document dated 20th November, 1979 is to be cancelled and revoked. In clause 3 of the order of the Apex Court which records settlement , it is recorded that respondents 2(a) to 2(c) to respondent No.8 agree not to pursue the criminal complaint filed by them against the 1st respondent before the Apex Court. The parties agreed that registration of document dated 20th November, 1979 is to be cancelled and revoked. In clause 3 of the order of the Apex Court which records settlement , it is recorded that respondents 2(a) to 2(c) to respondent No.8 agree not to pursue the criminal complaint filed by them against the 1st respondent before the Apex Court. Clause 5 of the order of the Apex Court reads as under :- As a consequence, the parties concerned shall bring the terms of settlement to the notice of respective Civil Court/Criminal Court/Sub Registrar for further consequential orders in terms of this terms of settlement including refund of court fee if any in accordance with law. Thus, there is over all settlement as regards the document dated 20th November, 1979 which is the subject matter of the alleged offence. 6. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties to the proceedings before the Apex Court and in view of the ultimate order passed by the Apex Court on the basis of settlement, it is obvious that now continuation of criminal proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law. In view of the settlement, now no purpose will be served by continuing criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings appear to have arisen out of a dispute over the immovable property which is now resolved by mutual consent. 7. In the circumstances, this is a fit case to exercise powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, we pass the following order :- Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) with a clarification that the FIR and Criminal Case No.859/PW/2009 stand quashed and set aside only as against the petitioner. Petition is allowed on the above terms.