IMPORTANT POINT
When parties settle their dispute in initial stages of complaint case u/s 138 NI Act the High court ought to quash the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 2 is the complainant who has lodged the FIR against the appellants bearing Crime No. 267 of 2012 registered by Chatushrungi Police Station, Pune, Maharashtra for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants are original accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the said criminal proceedings. They are the Directors of M/s. Karl Logistics (for short ‘said Company’), a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of logistics and iron ore supply and equipped with all necessary approvals and registrations for doing the business. Said Company also had legal authority to load and unload the iron ore and, for that purpose, the Government of Goa had allocated a plot at Kothambi vide letter No. 111/435/2010-Mines/2214. M/s. Consistent was doing business with the said Company for quite some time and Mr. Vilas Birajdar (Proprietor of M/s. Consistent) introduced respondent No. 2 to the appellants since he had interest to invest. Accordingly, Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘MoU’) came to be executed between M/s. Karl Logistics (signed by appellant No. 2 on its behalf), M/s. Platinum Buildcon (signed by respondent No.2 on its behalf) and M/s. Consistent (signed by Mr. Birajdar on its behalf). According to the terms, it was agreed that M/s. Platinum Buildcon will invest an amount of Rs. 1.50 crores with M/s. Karl Logistics for period of one month and would be entitled to profit of Rs.90 lakhs in addition to its investment of 1.50 crores or Rs. 200 per tonne whichever is maximum. All payments were to be made through M/s. Consistent and the entire amount was to be paid within one week time from signing of the MoU. M/s. Karl Logistics also extended security Cheque No. 208225 drawn on State Bank of India of Rs.2.40 crores in advance to M/s. Consistent, who was to act as insurance for both the parties.

3. According to the appellants, in breach of the MoU dated November 28, 2011 and, more particularly, in violation and defiance of the term requiring respondent No. 2 to pay the entire amount of Rs. 1.50 crores within one week from the signing of the MoU, respondent No. 2 deposited the amount with M/s. Consistent in several instalments. Further, respondent No. 2 did not deposit the entire amount of Rs.1.50 crores but an amount of Rs.1.46 crores. According to respondent No. 2, since no positive response was received as per the MoU, he tried to pursue Mr. Birajdar as well as the appellants for compliance of the MoU and return of money. Accordingly, two post dated cheques were issued by the appellants viz. Cheque No. 208255 dated February 6, 2012 and Cheque No. 208256 dated February 10, 2012 for an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs and Rs.1.46 lakhs respectively. It is contended that the said cheques are signed by appellant No. 1 and the appellants assured that these would be honoured on the due dates mentioned thereupon. According to respondent No. 2, he deposited Cheque No. 208255 on December 6, 2012 with his banker, however, the same was returned and when the appellants were informed about the same, he was instructed to deposit the same again. But it met the same fate. Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bearing CC No. 19227 of 2012 in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, Maharashtra. Thereafter, on August 2, 2012, he also lodged FIR bearing Crime No. 267 of 2012 with Chatushrungi Police Station, Pune, Maharashtra for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 34 of IPC alleging that the appellants and original accused No.1/Mr. Birajdar has committed fraud.

4. The appellants moved the application for anticipatory bail in the aforesaid proceedings which was granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. In the meantime, the parties started negotiating with each other. These settlement talks were fr