High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.675 OF 20211Ishrat Ilahi Khan s/o Fazal Ilahi Khan,Age 65 yrs., Occ. Nil,2Naveed Ilahi Khan s/o Nusrat Ilahi Khan,Age 45 yrs, Occ. Business,3Dr. Asna Rabbab w/o Abdul Qadar Khan,Age 36 yrs., Occ. Medical Practitioner,4Nusrat Ilahi Khan s/o Fazal Ilahi Khan,Age 65 yrs., Occ. Nil,All are r/o Plot No.2, Nahid Manzil,Central Naka Road, Near VIP Function Hall,Jaswantpura, Aurangabad. … Applicants… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station, Jinsi,Aurangabad. 2Mohammad Azhar Rahimuddin Qureshi,Age 46 yrs., Occ. Software Engineer,R/o House No. 1-13-43, Near Nehru Bhavan,Kabadipura, Aurangabad. … Respondents...Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for applicantsMr. S.A. Gaikwad, APP for respondent No.1Mr. P.M. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.2
Legal Reasoning
2Cri.Appln_675_2021+2...WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3090 OF 2023INCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.675 OF 2021Naveed Ilahi Khan s/o Nusrat Ilahi Khan,Age 45 yrs, Occ. Business,R/o Plot No.2, Nahid Manzil,Central Naka Road, Near VIP Function Hall,Jaswantpura, Aurangabad. … Applicant… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer,Economic Offences Wing, Aurangabad City Police Station,Aurangabad. 2Mohammad Azhar Rahimuddin Qureshi,Age 46 yrs., Occ. Software Engineer,R/o House No. 1-13-43, Near Nehru Bhavan,Kabadipura, Aurangabad. … Respondents...Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for applicantMr. S.A. Gaikwad, APP for respondent No.1Mr. P.M. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.2...WITH 3Cri.Appln_675_2021+2CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3824 OF 2024Khan Abdul Kadar s/o Nusrat Ilahi Khan,Age 38 yrs., Occ. Business,R/o Plot No.2, Jaswantpura,Central Naka Road, Aurangabad. … Applicant… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer,Police Station, Jinsi, Aurangabad City,Dist. Aurangabad. 2Mohammad Azhar Rahimuddin Qureshi,Age 46 yrs., Occ. Software Engineer,R/o House No. 1-13-43, Near Nehru Bhavan,Kabadipura, Aurangabad. … Respondents...Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for applicantMr. S.A. Gaikwad, APP for respondent No.1Mr. P.M. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.2...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. RESERVED ON :04th FEBRUARY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON :21st APRIL, 2025 4Cri.Appln_675_2021+2ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Criminal Application No.675 of 2021 and Criminal ApplicationNo.3824 of 2024 have been filed initially for quashment of First InformationReport vide Crime No.34/2021 dated 09.02.2021 registered with Jinsi PoliceStation, Aurangabad, which was then transferred to Economic OffencesWing, Aurangabad and later on by way of amendment after filing of chargesheet for quashing proceedings in Special Case No.184/2021 pending beforethe designated Court under MPID/Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad,for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of theMaharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in FinancialEstablishments) Act, 1999. Criminal Application No.3090 of 2023 has beenfiled for quashment of notice dated 06.04.2021 issued to Talathi, Padegaonand notice dated 19.01.2021 issued to Assistant Sub-Registrar, Class-II,Aurangabad No.03 by respondent No.1. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar forapplicants, learned APP Mr. S.A. Gaikwad for respondent No.1 and learnedAdvocate Mr. P.M. Salunke for respondent No.2 in all matters. 3The affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent 5Cri.Appln_675_2021+2No.2 – informant Mohammad Azhar Rahimuddin Qureshi and along with hisaffidavit a compromise deed, that has taken place between him, somewitnesses and applicants, has been produced. It will not be out of place tomention here that this Court has got the said compromise deed verified fromRegistrar (Judicial) and the report has been submitted on 30.09.2024 thatapplicant No.1 in two matters and other applicants in one matter as well asrespondent No.2 in all applications were present before him. Important pointto be noted is that it appears that other witnesses were never producedbefore learned Registrar (Judicial). Other witnesses, who are party tocompromise deed, are in fact, victims and, therefore, now, it is the questionbefore this Court, as to whether upon such compromise whether FirstInformation Report and charge sheet can be quashed and set aside. 4Learned APP relies on the Three Judge Bench decision of Hon’bleSupreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others[(2019) 5 SCC 688], wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has given guidelines asto when quashment of non-compoundable offences is permissible in view ofcompromise. It has been observed that - “Quashing would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.The Court has to apply mind to (i) Whether crime against society oragainst individual alone and kind of dispute, whether civil orcriminal, (ii) Seriousness, nature and category/kind of crime/offence 6Cri.Appln_675_2021+2and how committed, (iii) Whether offence under special statute, (iv)Stage of proceedings, (v) Conduct and antecedents of accused,whether accused absconding, why absconding and how he managedto compromise with complainant. The criminal proceedings arisingout of commercial transactions or matrimonial or family disputeswhen having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character maybe quashed when parties have resolved entire dispute amongstthemselves.”It is also observed that - “Such power cannot be used in respect of heinous and seriousoffences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape and dacoity,etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impacton society.”4.1Learned APP also relies on the Division Bench decision ofHon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Rakesh Das vs.State of Haryana and another in CRM-M No.48043 of 2023 with companionmatters decided on 12.11.2024, which was in fact, a decision upon referenceand then it is held in case when the victim is allowed to have piecemealsettlements, it is observed that the High Court should exercise self-restraint inreceiving piecemeal settlements, and, also subsequently in making piecemealorders of composition.5Learned APP submits that as per First Information Report and 7Cri.Appln_675_2021+2the investigation there are also certain other victims of the scheme that wasintroduced by applicants and then they have not received whatever waspromised for their investment. Therefore, when now, the applicants andrespondent No.2 are coming before the Court that applicants have now paidthe entire amount what was due to informant and about 11 other persons,then it would be unjust for other victims. 6Learned Advocate for applicants then points out that as per FirstInformation Report and charge sheet in all 14 witnesses and informant havebeen cheated and their amount has been misappropriated. Now, there iscompromise with everybody. Under the said circumstance, it would be unjustto ask applicants to face the trial. 7The first and the foremost fact to be noted is that as per theprosecution story the informant and 14 witnesses were promised by accusedpersons that their amount which they would be taking would be invested inshare market and they would be given 8 to 14 % returns and they invitedthose persons to deposit the amount in the company owned by accusedpersons i.e. N.K. Multiservices and Galaxy Enterprises. The document in thenature of partnership agreement was executed. The amount that wasreceived from informant was Rs.28,00,000/- and from the witnesses it wasRs.1,15,00,000/-. Thus, the amount to which these persons were duped is 8Cri.Appln_675_2021+2stated to be Rs.1,43,00,000/-. Now, as per the compromise the parties havesettled their dispute for Rs.80,00,000/- only and in fact, they had then statedthat the amount of party No.2 i.e. 12 persons with party No.1 i.e. accusedwas Rs.1,54,00,000/-. Whether the said amount which has been received byinformant and those persons as per the compromise is said to be beneficial tothem is not the point in which this Court is interested, but as per the saidcompromise it is stated that even in respect of that Rs.80,00,000/-,Rs.30,00,000/- is given by way of cash and for rest of the amount ofRs.50,00,000/- they had agreed to give three flats in a building by name‘Hiranya Enclave’ in property Gat No.22, Satara in Aurangabad, for whichagain one Karim Khan Pathan, who is not the party to the document, is statedto have given assurance. The said land is in possession of said Karim KhanPathan. Though as aforesaid, whether the compromise is proper or not, maynot be a subject-matter here, but still when it is a matter under M.P.I.D. Act,the said fact is also required to be considered. As to whether the saidcompromise is practicable and secondly why a third party should have beeninvolved in the matter, would be the question. The said compromise, on thebasis of which applicants want First Information Report and charge sheet tobe quashed and set aside, is not a compromise which can be accepted andfurther when the prosecution story is that in all 15 persons (includinginformant) are the persons who have been duped, then compromise with 12 9Cri.Appln_675_2021+2persons (including informant) cannot be accepted. 8The learned APP also points out that as against applicant IshratIlahi Khan s/o Fazal Ilahi Khan, Dr. Asna Rabbab w/o Abdul Qadar Ilahi Khanand Shujat Ilahi s/o Ishrat Ilahi Khan the charge sheet has been filed underSection 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that they areabsconding. Therefore, as against the absconding persons this Court will notexercise its powers in view of the decision in Laxmi Narayan (supra). 9One more aspect that has been brought on record that StateGovernment had taken steps under Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act andattached and seized the immovable property of Gat No.62 to the extent of59.78 R situated at village Padegaon, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. It is stated tobe of the ownership of accused No.1 Abdul Qadar Khan s/o Nusrat Ilahi Khanand accused Naveed Ilahi Khan. The notification to that effect waspromulgated on 17.08.2023. It appears that now in order to get rid of or tooutcome the effects of further proceedings such kind of settlement has beenarrived at. However, we are of the considered view that it is not in favour ofinvestors/depositors and, therefore, First Information Report and proceedingscannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. On the merits also there isprima facie case. Hence, following order. 10Cri.Appln_675_2021+2ORDERi)Criminal Application No.675 of 2021 and Criminal ApplicationNo.3824 of 2024 stand rejected.ii)In view of disposal of Criminal Application No.675 of 2021,Criminal Application No.3090 of 2023 also stands disposed of. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd