Karan Arora And Anr. vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

Held

The High Court held that the FIR should be quashed and set aside. The Court noted that the dispute was purely commercial in nature and did not involve any loss to society or the Government. The success of the mediation efforts was acknowledged, leading to a Settlement Agreement between the parties. Respondent No. 2, the informant, provided an unconditional consent affidavit and appeared in court to state his no-objection to the quashing of the FIR. The Court found no impediment to quashing the FIR given the settlement and the consent of the informant. The quashing was made conditional upon the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 making specified payments to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within eight weeks. Proof of payment was to be submitted to the Registry, failing which the order would be liable to be recalled.

Facts

The Petitioners, Karan Arora and another, sought to quash an FIR registered on April 8, 2024, at Borivali Police Station under Sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2, representing Yash Entertainment. The dispute arose from an event management contract for 'Rangtali 2023'. The Petitioners' company, M/s. Paytm Insider (Westland Entertainment Private Limited), was responsible for ticket bookings. The FIR alleged that the Petitioners failed to meet a guaranteed collection of Rs. 2.00 crores and retained Rs. 99,99,000/- from ticket sales. The matter was referred to mediation, which was successful, leading to a Settlement Agreement dated September 24, 2024, between the Petitioners, M/s. Westland Entertainment Private Limited, and Yash Entertainment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed in light of the successful mediation and settlement between the parties? The Petitioners argued that since a settlement agreement has been reached between the parties, and Respondent No. 2 has no objection to quashing the FIR, the proceedings should be set aside. They highlighted that the dispute was purely commercial and that the settlement terms included provisions for payment and GST. Respondent No. 2, present in court, confirmed his voluntary consent to the quashing of the FIR, stating he had no objection if the petition was allowed. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not record any specific arguments against the quashing in view of the settlement.