Swapnil Sampat Pawar @ Neel Pawar vs. Pooja Surendra Chopra And Anr

Held

The Court held that the criminal proceedings arising from FIR C.R. No.897/2020 should be quashed. The Court noted that the parties had amicably settled their disputes, as evidenced by the consent terms filed. The dispute was found to have an overwhelming and predominantly civil flavour, stemming from commercial transactions. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., which permits quashing of criminal proceedings in cases with a civil flavour where parties have resolved their entire dispute, and the possibility of conviction is remote. The Court found that continuation of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility and an abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, the application was allowed, and the FIR was quashed to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The operative direction was to quash the FIR.

Facts

The applicant, Swapnil Sampat Pawar, filed a criminal application before the Bombay High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered against him. The FIR was lodged by respondent No. 1, Pooja Surendra Chopra, at Malad Police Station. The dispute between the parties, which had a civil flavour, was amicably settled. As part of the settlement, the applicant agreed to pay respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The applicant also agreed to pay the Goods & Services Tax (GST) payable on services provided to respondent No. 1, and has paid Rs. 2,50,020/- as GST. Respondent No. 1, in turn, accepted the settlement amount and agreed to withdraw all claims and provide unconditional consent for quashing the FIR. Both parties were present before the court and confirmed the settlement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings arising from FIR C.R. No.897/2020, registered under Sections 420, 406, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, should be quashed in light of the amicable settlement between the parties, considering the predominantly civil nature of the dispute? (Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.) Arguments: Petitioner/Applicant: Submitted that the parties have amicably settled their disputes, and the dispute necessarily has a civil flavour. Relied on the consent terms filed, which included payment of a settlement amount and GST. Argued that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of court and cause extreme injustice. Revenue/State: The State of Maharashtra was represented by an Additional Public Prosecutor. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the State. However, respondent No. 1, the complainant, through her counsel, consented to the quashing of the FIR.