The court emphasized the wide plenitude of inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in cases of overwhelmingly civil nature and full settlement between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against them under Sections 406, 409, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, "the IPC"). Respondent No.2 is the complainant at whose behest, the FIR stood registered.

3. Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint on 15th June, 2016, leading to registration of an FIR, claiming that he had entered into a transaction with the company of the petitioners for supply of paper and the company of the petitioners manufactures packing material for Gutka products. It was the case of respondent No.2 that while some payments were made for supply of papers, an amount of Rs.7,17,09,029/- remained unpaid. Cheques were issued on behalf of the company, but the same were bounced. When the cases were filed under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, "the NI Act"), the stand taken by the petitioners was that they were not directors of the company. According to respondent No.2, by indulging in aforesaid activities, the petitioners had cheated him and indulged in criminal breach of trust.

4. Some of the accused were arrested and others were granted anticipatory bail and thereafter, the accused and respondent No.2 entered into negotiations to amicably settle the dispute.

5. It is in pursuance of the settlement of dispute between the parties that on 27th July, 2020, respondent No.2 submitted a letter before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, EOW, Mumbai stating that he desires to withdraw the complaint against the accused persons, including the petitioners herein. Upon this Court issuing notice in the present writ petition, respondent No.2 entered appearance through counsel and filed an affidavit reiterating that the dispute between him and the petitioners had been settled and that he had no objection for quashing of the FIR.

6. Mr.Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that since the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled and the affidavit of respondent No.2 was on record, the present writ petition deserved to be allowed. Mr.Sutaria, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, supported the prayers made in the writ petition on the basis of the settlement between the parties. Mr.Yagnik, learned APP, appeared for respondent No. 1/State.

7. Respondent No.2 was personally present in Court and we interacted with him. He submitted that since the dispute had been settled and he did not have any grievance against the petitioners, the writ petition could be allowed in terms of the prayers made therein. It was submitted that he had settled the dispute and filed affidavit before this Court on his own free will and without coercion.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominating civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full an