Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2313 (BOM)

Jayesh Vishnu Parab v. State of Goa

2022-10-19

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, M.S.SONAK

body2022
JUDGMENT BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, J. - Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard the matter with the consent of Mr H.D.Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State and Mr Abhijeet Kamat, learned Counsel for respondent No.5. 3. The petitioner filed a present petition under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC, for short) with the following prayer: (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of F.I.R. bearing no. 15/2012 from the Police in charge of C.I.D. Crime Branch (EOC)/SIT; which has now culminated in filing Criminal Case No.114/2015, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panaji, Goa and upon examining the legality, proprietary and reasonability thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the F.I.R. registered against the Petitioner herein as well as Criminal Case No.114/2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panaji, Goa qua the Petitioner only. 4. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No.15 of 2012 which culminated in filing Criminal Case No.114 of 2015 pending in the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji. 5. Present petition is filed only on the ground that the said FIR and consequently the charge sheet be quashed and set aside as the petitioner and the complainant settled their dispute out of Court vide settlement dtd. 25/8/2022, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the said criminal case. It is further claimed that since the offences alleged in the FIR /charge sheet are non-compoundable offences, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 filed an affidavit claiming therein that the said respondent No.5 being a company is ready and willing to withdraw the proceedings filed against the petitioner since they compromised the matter amicably between them. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that since the parties have already settled their dispute, no fruitful purpose will be served by proceeding with the matter. 8. Along with the petition the copy of FIR No.15 of 2012 is produced on record. Similarly, the complaint filed by respondent No.4 dtd. 27/3/2012 is already placed on record. At Exhibit-C there is a Deed of Dissolution of partnership dtd. 8. Along with the petition the copy of FIR No.15 of 2012 is produced on record. Similarly, the complaint filed by respondent No.4 dtd. 27/3/2012 is already placed on record. At Exhibit-C there is a Deed of Dissolution of partnership dtd. 1/10/2012 by which respondent No.5 took over all the assets and liabilities of respondent No.4 - partnership firm and accordingly, respondent No.5 continues the business of the firm under the same name. Thus, it is clear that even though the FIR was lodged by respondent No.4, the said partnership is now dissolved and taken over by respondent No.5. Thus, respondent No.5 stepped into the shoes of respondent No.4 as a complainant with regard to the FIR lodged against the petitioner. 9. Similar Deed of Settlement dtd. 25/8/2012 is placed on record executed between the petitioner and respondent No.5 wherein it is clearly stated that the said parties settled their dispute and respondent No.5 undertakes to cooperate with the petitioner for getting the said proceedings quashed. 10. Similar application/petition was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh vide Criminal MP No.1488 of 2022 decided on 11/10/2022 wherein an FIR lodged against the present petition in Raipur for similar offences was quashed and set aside. 11. By way of present FIR, the offences under Sec. 120-B, 420 of IPC stands registered against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner conspired with other accused persons to cheat the complainant's company and in furtherance to their common intention entered into a MOU wherein the present petitioner is a signatory, in order to purchase iron ore and in that connection issued a possession letter pertaining to stock of Rs. 1, 50, 000 DMT ore stacked at OGL Pole, Kothambi jetty at Usgao and Sinori Jetty, Navelim & TPL Maina jetty at Godby, Goa in which the iron ore was showed transferred to complainant's company and all the accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently induced the complainant's company to part a sum of Rs. 17, 50, 00, 000/- on the pretext that iron ore fines would be supplied to the complainant's company and without authorization from the complainant's company loaded the iron ore in Vessel M.V.S. Vincentia at Panaji Port in order to shift the same to China thereby cheated the complainant's company. 12. We have perused a Settlement Deed and other documents placed on record. 12. We have perused a Settlement Deed and other documents placed on record. Similarly, the order passed by Chhattisgarh High Court also shows that similar FIR and proceedings were filed against the petitioner at Raipur and the same have been quashed and set aside on the basis of settlement between the parties. 13. In the case of Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court observed in paragraph No.61 as under : "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Sec. 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." (emphasis supplied) 14. The circumstances which are brought on record by way of settlement between the parties clearly go to show that it would be unfair to continue with the criminal proceedings as no fruitful purpose would be achieved due to settlement between the parties. In order to secure ends of justice, it would be appropriate in the given case that the FIR and the criminal case are put to an end. The affidavit filed by respondent No.5 is supporting the prayer in the petition. The learned Public Prosecutor also endorsed that continuation of such proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law qua the petitioner as parties have already settled their dispute out of Court. However, the fact remains that the complainant by filing a complaint, moved the investigating machinery and after filing of the charge sheet, the settlement was arrived at. Thus, it is clear that after a period of such delay, allowing the parties to quash the proceedings without putting any costs on the petitioner would be unjust. However, the fact remains that the complainant by filing a complaint, moved the investigating machinery and after filing of the charge sheet, the settlement was arrived at. Thus, it is clear that after a period of such delay, allowing the parties to quash the proceedings without putting any costs on the petitioner would be unjust. Considering the time which would be consumed by the investigating agency for collecting the evidence against the accused persons including the petitioner and the fact that the matter is pending before the learned Magistrate at Panaji since 2015 we thought it fit to direct the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as a condition precedent for the purpose of quashing of the proceedings. Such costs shall be deposited with the Goa State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of using it in conducting awareness programs. 15. Having said so, and on the facts noted above, FIR No.15 of 2012 along with Criminal Case No.114 of 2015 needs to be quashed qua the petitioner only. 16. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'a', subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with Goa State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks from today. On depositing such costs, the FIR No.15 of 2012 registered at CID Crime Branch (EOC)/SIT, Panaji and Criminal Case No.114 of 2015 pending on the files of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji shall stand quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.