922.apl. 805.2022.judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.805 OF 2022 1. Deepakkumar s/o Rekhehandji Parakh, Aged 56 Years, Occupation : Business, R/o Dhanraj Plaza, Main Road, Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur. 2. Ajay s/o Ashok Elkunchwar, Aged 52 Years, Occupation : Service R/o. Hawrapeth, Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur, Tahsil and District Nagpur. 3. Arun Manoharrao Wankar, Aged 52 Years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Ekori Ward No.1, Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur. 4. Mahesh s/o Bansilal Mandhania Aged 42 Years, Occupation : Chartered Accountant, R/o G-1, Sindhu Apartment, Near Anusaya Mangal Karyalaya, Jaitala Road, Nagpur, Tahsil and District Nagpur. 5. Prasunraj s/o Dinesh Thakur, Aged 47 Years, Occupation : Finance Consultant, R/o 102, Kamla Nagar, Abhinav Residency, Wadi, Nagpur, Tahsil and District Nagpur. 6. Vijay s/o Kewalram Randive, Aged 64 Years, Occupation : Retired, R/o Mahakali Nagar No.3, Manewada, Nagpur, Tahsil and District Nagpur. ..... APPLICANTS // VERSUS // 1. State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Police Station Officer, Kotwali, Tahsil and District Nagpur. 2025:BHC-NAG:9426-DB 922.apl. 805.2022.judgment.odt (2) 2. Uttam s/o Yashwant Borkar, Aged 40 Years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Opp. Swami Samarth Kendra, Tulsibaug, Mahal, Nagpur, Tahsil and District Nagpur. ....NON-APPLICANTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M. P. Khanjanchi, Counsel for the applicants. Mr. M. J. Khan, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. C. D. Dhanjode, Counsel for non-applicant No.2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 11.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 19.09.2025 JUDGMENT : (PER: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) 1. Present application is filed for quashing of the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) in connection with Crime No.4/2021 registered with Police Station, Kotwali, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts are as under: The informant namely Uttam Yeshwant Borkar, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for registration of offence against Shri Anand Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited, Chandrapur, through its President Deepakkumar Parakh and other office bearers. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class directed the Police Station, Kotwali to register the offence and investigate the same and therefore, the crime came 922.apl. 805.2022.judgment.odt (3) to be registered against the present applicants. As per the allegations, the informant was having his savings account in the said Shri Anand Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited, Chandrapur vide account No.SB154. The informant has taken overdraft facility under the account bearing No. ODPM/7 in the year 2016 with the aforesaid Bank. As per his allegation, in the aforesaid account, he has mortgaged his land bearing City Survey No.239 Sheet No.423, Mouza Nagpur, whereby the informant has constructed residential flat scheme. The informant has taken overdraft loan of an amount of Rs.50 Lakh, which has been utilized by him and also paid the dues regularly and now outstanding amount is shown as Rs.23 Lakh, excluding the overdue amount which is Rs.7,113/-. He has also taken the overdraft facility under overdraft account No.ODPM/15 in the year 2018 and the said Shri Anand Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited, Chandrapur in the name of the informant and his wife by mortgaging the land Survey No.325 Sheet No.255, wherein the informant constructed the commercial space, which is under construction till date. The informant is also having overdraft facility against the account TLSS/4 for Rs.25 Lakh respectively. As per his allegations, since the aforesaid properties were mortgaged for overdraft facility and term loan facility and opened the property card chart has been put by the said aforesaid Bank, the NMC did all correspondence with the informant as NMC has acquired areas of 75.15 sq. mtrs. and sanctioned the compensation amount of 922.apl. 805.2022.judgment.odt (4) Rs.76,65,300/-. The NMC was seeking all the relevant documents including the NOC from the said Bank for execution and registration of sale deed. The informant also approached the said Bank for getting NOC which has not been given to the informant. On the earlier point of time, the aforesaid Bank used to issue NOC for selling any residential flat without mentioning account number however, with malafide intentions, the applicants under the instructions from the accused Deepakkumar Parakh and Manager Vijay Randive personally approached the NMC Estate Department and submitted NOC by mentioning account number ODPM/7, which having outstanding of Rs.23 Lakh. Thus, the aforesaid accused persons jointly and collectively pretended that the property is mortgaged with them and loan amount is due against the informant and thereby got diverted Rs.75 Lakh amount to account of ODPM/7, which was sanctioned by the NMC against the compensation of acquisition of the land. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, who submitted that as far as the present applicants are concerned, no offence is made out against them. During pendency of this application, the parties arrived at a settlement. The informant has filed an affidavit before this Court also shows that during the pendency of this application, he has amicably settled the matter 922.apl. 805.2022.judgment.odt (5) with the applicants/accused and therefore, he does not want to prosecute the crime registered under the impugned First Information Report. 4. Learned APP strongly opposed for the same and submitted that considering the nature of the allegation, prima facie case is made out against the present applicants. 5. There is no dispute that the crime was registered on the basis of the application filed by the informant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. In view of the directions given by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, the crime was registered against the present applicants. During the pendency of this application, the informant and the present applicants amicably settled the dispute and the informant has filed an affidavit to that extent. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in MANU/SC/0781/2012 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled, although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a specific 922.apl. 805.2022.judgment.odt (6) reference was made to offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim but the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable. The High Court may, within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.” 6. In the case of Naushey Ali Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, wherein also the Hon’ble Apex Court held that proceeding with the trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. 7. In our considered opinion, the power under Section 482 must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in matters of this nature. Once the matter is already settled between the parties, in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end 922.apl. 805.2022.judgment.odt (7) and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed subject to the costs of Rs.30,000/- by the applicants and Rs.30,000/- by the non-applicant No.2, as the informant has set criminal law in motion wherein the entire police machinery was used. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The First Information Report bearing No.4/2021 registered with Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed, subject to the costs of Rs.30,000/- by the applicants and Rs.30,000/- by the non-applicant No.2. (iii) The costs be paid to the Police Welfare Fund, Nagpur and compliance be reported to this Court. The application is disposed of in the above said terms. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate.