ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ronith Joy appearing for the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Sajid Kariyaniya for learned advocate Mr.Devendar J. Pachar appearing for the respondents.

2. In compliance of the Order dated 09.03.2026, the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 are present before the Court and respondent nos.1 and 2 are not present. Hence, issue bailable warrant upon respondent nos.1 and 2, returnable on 17.03.2026 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

3. This application is filed for recall of the Order dated18.11.2024 passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No.1112 of 2024.

4. Order dated 18.11.2024 reads as under:

“[1] This Application is filed praying for initiating action in contempt against the respondents, who are accused, who have settled the matter with the present applicant as complainant of First Information Report and FIR filed against the original accused came to be quashed on the basis thereof.

[2] On an application for recall of the order passed in original Criminal Misc. Application No.1233 of 2022, it is asserted by the complainant that one of the accused on behalf of himself as also other co- accused filed an undertaking before the Court to pay an amount of Rs.2,25,00,000/- as full and final settlement as all dues of the original first informant i.e. applicant of recall application, the break up with amount as also the dates were also mentioned in the said undertaking, which is at page No.1 of the compilation.

[3] Mr. Panthil Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant vehemently submitted that since this undertaking is given to the Court, not acting as per the undertaking would attract action in civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, he has submitted that action in contempt be initiated against the respondents herein.

[4] However, if very undertaking filed by one of the accused being Hanif @ Anish Raheman Mugal (Patni) for himself as also other co-accused is seen, that undertaking is conditional wherein, in para-3, it is recited that in case of breach of payment of said amount or installments, the aforesaid FIR and all other consequential proceedings shall be revived. For that very purpose, recall application is filed by the present applicant and therefore, when the undertaking is given conditionally which would entitle the present applicant, if there is any breach of undertaking, to revive the FIR as also consequential proceedings, there appears no willful disobedience of the undertaking or any breach thereof. In view thereof, this application is rejected.”

5. Learned advocate Mr.Ronith Joy for the applicant submitted that a FIR was registered on 03.05.2021 with Palej Police Station for offences punishable under Section 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondents by the applicant. It was pointed out that Criminal Misc. Application No.1233 of 2022 was filed by the respondents for quashing the FIR and during the course of proceedings, a mutual understanding was reduced in writing in form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 10.01.2022, wherein, the respondent no.5 executed the MoU on behalf of all the accused persons by agreeing to pay Rs.3,60,88,540/- within a period of six months from the date of execution of Memorandum of Understanding.

6. It was pointed out that the undertaking was not complied with. It was submitted that however, taking into consideration the undertaking, Criminal Misc. Application No.1233 of 2022 was allowed by quashing the FIR vide Order dated 02.02.2022. It was submitted that MoU was not abided by the respondents and therefore, the applicant preferred the Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1233 of 2022 for recall of the Order dated 02.02.2022, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 08.07.2025.

7. Subsequent to issue of the notice of recall, the respondents approached the applicant for settlement and another