IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that filing a criminal complaint based on a civil dispute, while suppressing material facts, constitutes an abuse of the legal process, warranting the quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J. - Both these petitions are taken together as the Petitioners are challenging FIR bearing crime no. 74/2023 registered by the Porvorim Police Station against them for the offences punishable under Ss. 403, 406, 409, 420 r/w 341 of Indian Penal Code, on a complaint lodged by the Informant/Antonio Trinadad, Respondent No. 2 in both the petitions. The Petitioners in both these matters are the accused.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard with consent for final disposal.

3. Criminal Writ Petition No. 104/2023 is filed by the Petitioner through its Director Mr. Rishi Dandona. The FIR vide crime no. 74/2023 was registered on 3/7/2023, on the directions from the Superintendent of Police, North Goa, Porvorim.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner executed an agreement with Respondent No. 2 and 3 on 23/11/1994 for the purpose of transfer of 4, 51, 000 equity shares of the Petitioner for a total sum of Rs.4, 01, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Four Crores One Lakhs only) of which an amount of Rs.10, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) was paid at the time of execution of agreement by Respondent No. 3 and a sum of Rs.3, 91, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Three Crores and Ninety One Lakhs only) was to be paid on or before 28/2/1995. Since Respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to pay the balance amount, the earlier Director of the Petitioner forwarded reminder stating that only an amount of Rs.1, 03, 72, 579.00 (Rupees One Crore, Three Lakhs, Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Nine only) was received by the Petitioner out of the remaining agreed amount. During the telephone conversation, Respondent No. 2 and 3 were called upon to pay the balance amount. Since there was no further payment, a notice of termination of the agreement was issued on 23/1/1996.

5. Respondent No. 2 and 3 filed a Criminal complaint against the deceased Director of the Petitioner before the Commissioner of Police in Mumbai. Since no FIR was registered, an application was filed by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 under 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Mumbai which was registered as Criminal Case No. 319/Misc./96. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the said complaint vide Order dtd. 22/2/1999.

6. Thereafter, on 24/9/1996, Respondent No. 2 and 3 filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of the agreement dtd. 24/11/1994 with the Civil Court at Mapusa. Vide a Conditional Order dtd. 24/9/1996, and the Civil Court directed Respondent No. 2 and 3 to deposit a sum of Rs.2, 51, 11, 107.00 (Rupees Two Crores Fifty-One Lakhs Eleven Thousand and Hundred and Seven only) within a period of one month. Respondents No. 2 and 3 sought an extension of 30 days to deposit, which was also granted. Thereafter, this Court granted another extension to Respondent No. 2 and 3 to deposit an amount mentioned in the Civil Court's Order till 8/11/1996. Respondents No. 2 and 3 then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court seeking a further extension, and the Supreme Court extended the time to pay the amount till November 1996. However, Respondent No. 2 and 3 failed to deposit the said amount of Rs.2, 51, 11, 107.00 (Rupees Two Crores Fifty-One Lakhs Eleven Thousand and Hundred and Seven only) within the extended period.

7. It is further the case of the Petitioner that as per the Order of the Civil Court Mapusa, Petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1, 01, 72950.00(Rupees One Crore One Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) and accordingly was entitled to run the Hotel Paradise existing at Village Calangute.

8. It is further the case of the Petitioner that in the meantime Respondent No. 2 and 3 approached the Sessions Court in Mumbai vide Criminal Writ Petition No. 239/1999 challenging the Order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing their application. The Sessions Court allowed the said revision and directed the Trial Court to issue the process. The Trial Court t