HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CBIMINAL PETITION NO: 6895,6896 AND 6897 OF 2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6895 OF 2020 Between:

.

f il,4r. Harish Kesharia, s/o lr,4r. Mr. Keshavlal Kesharia Aged 68 years, Occ Business R/o Pt Floor,50, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (W), lrlumbai- 400 056

2. Mr. Ashok Kesharia, S/o Mr. Keshavlal Kesharia, Aged 61 years, Occ.

Business R/o B, Golden Arrow, 163/F, Hem Colony, S.V Road, Vile Par (W), Itrlumbai - 400 056

3. lvlr. Yash Kesharia, S/o Mr. Harish Kesharia, Aged 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o 1st Floor, 50 Bajaj Road, Vile Par (W), IVlumbai- 400 056 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.1 -3 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by RGI Police Station Through its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

2.

Mr. Jagdish Kumar Sarda, S/o Late Shri Ramnivas Sarda, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business R/o Villa 35, Pearl Court, Attapur, Hyderguda, Rajendernagar Mandal, R.R District.

3.

lnspector of Police, RGI Airport Police Station, Central Crime Statron-

Economic Offences Wing (CCS-EOW) Cyberabad- Hyderabad,Telangana ,..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR No. 85 of 201 8 on the file of Station House Officer, RGlAirport Police Station, Shamshabadand quash the same.

l.A. NO: 3OF 2021 Petition under Section 320 RiW 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Coud may be pleased to compound the offences and to record the compromise to quash all further proceedings in FIR No. 85 of 2018 on the file of RGI Airport police Station, Shamshabad, Hyderabad

. l

I r- LallY (s,. tu rr l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 tl!'Ttl1l:"t Petition under Section c 4 ;8 ;2 ; .o -f o C rr 'P cr'C ,.i np "r ia .py Jin tg iti oth na ,tt h i en t Hh ie gh' court may be stated in the Memorand;";i i nl,orn"y Horder, i.e., petitioner No 2 to oreased to permit tre s Npe "c ;'] ia ',r i' 'p inl lr ,r" ii ti.'" pro"."oingi arising out of F'r'R'No' B5 of r ze do lr Be s we an st t fh ile e dp e ot nit io tnn ee r t ite oi hir'ii'p"n d"tice' staton' shamshabad' Hvderabad l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 tltuTtqlt"t Petition under Section 482 oI Cr'P'C praying that in t Hh ie sh' Court mav be d;;r"otCt*inrip""tition,the stated in the Mem po "r 'a ''tn "d ior# -ni io tne petitioners as well as the Respondent to oleased to grant ,ni to quash all further_ proceed ings in F'l R No' 85 of comoound the offences li'iil;il" iil" ot tt'te nct trpo't pori"" Station' Shamshabad '

I.A. NO:2 OF 2020 Petition under Section G48 ;2 ;t dof t Cr'P c' 'C '' i"p "ra i y Pin eg "t it th ioa nt 't nin e t Hh ie gh' " cI" ou uT rtt - mt- a1 vl" u bet s ot la et ae sd e din tt oh e g rM ane t m sto a Nyra "on t Bd a'; ;i" 'r; "i; u i ;I ;n i;I I Jp nio in"" e "i " o trl "n g "os f Prn oc tlu i"d "i n Sq t aa tir ore ns Ht oo uf st eh e o fp fe icti eti ro ' n Re Grs l Dursuant to the FlR of the above criminal police station, sr,',"r.r..,i"J, pending disposar Airport petition This Petition coming on for hearing'upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petit tio ien a pn ed ti tiu op no en r ah ne da r ti hng e t Ph ue b la icr g Pu rm oe sent cs u to of r S or ni A bN ehIN alD f I oT f A th S e tor C RH esA pN oD nE dR en , tA Nd ovo 1c . a ate n d of Sri CHnnORASEN LAW OFFICES Advocate for the Respondent No. 2'

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:6896 oF 2020 Between:

1' . M/s. K. Trambaklal,, Rep by its,pro-prietor' Mr' Kanhailal Parmar' Shop No 3'

V'li riEe trllall, Kanvei Road' silvassa'

ul' i yi- ['s n xs ] LTis ; "'l?,#:, rs"/.Fi ?.1':?l 5;,'"xi'1 3'ffl :x o J ?1i "'o"f

056 "

3. M Mu r.m Hba ai r i- s4 h0 0 K eshqlia" S/o M t'ir J' iM n"r' L K lie ' s Vha liv "i Fal u K tre its wha l'r ia M uA mq ne ad i- 6 48 0 0y e- 0 - 5a - 6r^ s n O c^c^

Business Fvo tst rroor, dE Cheda aoed about 40 years' Occ

4-'.it uM,r.. tPnr"a,s,hcannta Cnhdhreadak,a S n/o tt [fU :"r :' fL *a Txm rii lc :h ?a rn +d ?P2,-?";x.e"tl"='oRtt.i-';"

HosPital, Bahudaji Roa AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

2 Ivlr. Jaodish Kumar Sarda,, S/o Late Shri Ramnivas Sarda' aged about 48 ;;r;6;;'Ei;;in".t nv" Virr, gs' Feart court, Attapur' Hvdersuda'

hilund"rnugur. It/landal, R.R District'

..'RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 ol Cr'P 'C praYlng that in the. circumstances s ot la et ae sd e din tt oh e c aM ll e fom r o tnr ea n red crr o' il Ji sc r in* n -Ca C.

'

o r'f r oc 'r i 1m 4i 5n 0a 3l- P oe f t 2iti 0o 1n 9, t oh ne tH heig h fi leco ou fr t X m ll a Ay d b de l'

6h[f r,iluttopolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and quash the same '

r.A. NO: 2 oF 2021 Petition under section 320(2) R^^/ 482 of cr.P'C praying that in. ,the th;il";;;;;llum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High c Cir oc uu rm t s mta an yc e bs e s pt la et ae sd e i dn to -compounO the offences. occurd the compromise to to ouash all further proceeo,ng. i;'-C No 14503 oI 2O2O on the hle of Xll Addl'

dhi"f M"ttopolitan Magistrate, Hyder'a' bad '

t.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C praying_ 1|3t .jn ,,th"

circumstances stated in tn" fU"*otunOum of Grounds of Criminal Petition'the High Court may be pleased t" gi""i permission. to the petitioners as well ,as the ilrpl.l"i t1" lomporna tie offences and to quash all further proceedings in c.c.No. 14503 0f zotg on-tne file of the xli Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, HYderabad .

t.A. NO: 2 0F 2021 PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthqt,in..thu c Cir oc uu rm t s mta an yc e bs e s t pa lt ee ad s i en d t n to"- r p,ll ulro t'r itr n to hu em s po ef cG iaro lu Pn ods w eo rf c or fi m Ai tn toa ml P ee Yti ti Hon o, lt dh ee r '

H ii egh '

oetitioner No. 2 to represent the J petitioner Nos 1'3 & 4 in all the- proceedings H:ffi ;;i;i zozo'on the file of Xil Additional chief Metropiilitan "i ":ilNl.i+"sos I\rlagistrate, HYderabad .

l.A. NO: 2 oF 2A20 Petition under Section 482 ol cr.P.C praying that in the. crrcumstances s ;ita ;;te ;

d in it ohe -g l rr u/e nm t o sra tan vd u om f -o ,rr l c l"ro tu hn "o '

s po rf o c cr eim edin ina gl- sP e inti cti lo un d, it nh ge aH pi pg eh ac ro anu crt e m oa fy thb ee ;;;;;r;in-c.c. No. r+soi oi 2o1e'on the file of xll Addl. chief Metropolitan [liagl.trrt" Hyderabad. pending disposal of the above criminal petition '

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of a Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri ANINDITA S CHANDER ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1. and of sri CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES Advocate for the Respondent No.2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6897 OF 2020 Betwee n:

M/s K. Trambaklal , Represented by its proprietor,-NIr. K-anhayalal^l^uJ1u'

1 Having its office at Shop no.3, Vee Bee Mall, Kanvel Road,Silvassa- 396230'

2 Mr. Ashok Kesharia, S/o Mr. Keshavial Kesharia, Aged 61 Verys O99 gusiness R/o B, Golden Arrow, 163/F, Hem Colony, S.V Road,Vile Parle(W), Ivlumbai - 400 056

3 Mr. Yash Kesharia, S/o l\4r. HarishKesharia, Aged 35 years, Occ Business, R/o 1st Floor, 50 Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400 056

4 Mr. Harish Kesharia, s/o Mr. Mr. KeshavlalKesharia Aged 68 years, Occ'

Ausiness,Ryo 1st Floor, 50, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400 056 E Chandrakant and Co, Through its Partner, ltilr. Prashant Chheda, B/105'

Sniuiti r..{agar, Co-op Socieiy, Opp. Sion Hospital, Bahuda.ii Road'Sion, Mumbai ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 4 & 6 AND The State of Telangana , Represented by RGI Police Station Through its

1 Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2 Irilr. Jaodish Kumar Sarda, S/o Late Shri Rarnnivas Sarda, Aged about 48 uears.bcc. Business R/o Villa 35, Pearl Court, Attapur, Hyderguda, ilajendemagar Mandal, R.R District.

3 lnsoector of Police, RGI Airport Police Station, Central Crime Station-

Ec6nomic Offences Wing (CCS-EOW) Cyberabad- Hyderabad, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT.ACCUSED No. 5 Petition under Section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pteased toto call for the records in FIR No. 174 of 2019 on the file of Station House Officer, RGI Airport Police Station, Shamshabad and quash the same .

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may be pleased to Permit the Special powder of Attoney Holder' i.e, the petitionter No.2 to represent the petitioner No . 1,3, 4 & 5 in all the proceedings against-out of FIR No

174t2019 on the file o RGI Airpo( Police Station, Shamshabad, Hyderabad '

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High I Court may be pleased to grant permission to the petitioners as well as the Respondent to comPound the offences and to quash all further proceedings in F.l.R.No' 174 of 2019 on the file of RGI Air Port Police Station, Shamshabad, HYderabad.

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021 Petition under Section 320 (2) R/W 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to compound. the offence and to quash all further proceedings in FIR No. 774 of 2Ol9 on the file of RGI Airport Police Station, Shamshabad, Hyderabad .

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in FIR no. 174 of 201gon the file of RGI Airport Police Station, Telangana registered for offences pending disposal of the above criminal petition .

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the [,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ANINDITA S CHANDER ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and of Sri CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

.

The Court made the following: ORDER /

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6895,6896 AND 6897 0F 2020 As the lis involved in the three criminal petitions is a_11 one and the same, these petitions are being heard in common and disposed of rvith the lollowing COMMON ORDER:

1-a. The Crl.P.No.6895 of 2O2O is filed under Section -

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, ,the Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.8S of 2018 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, RGI Airport Police Station, Shamshabad. The offences alieged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 42O of IPC.

i-b. The Cr1.P.No.6896 of 2O2O is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 14503 of 20 19 pending on the file of the XIl Additionai Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyclerabad. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section

42O read rvith 34 of IPC.

1-c. The Cr1.P.No.6B96 of 2020 is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No. l74 of 2019 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, RGI Airport Police Station, Shamshabad. The petitioners herein are accused in the said Crl.P. Nos.6395 oJ 2A2A & horclt The olfences alleged against the petitioners are under CASC Sections 468, 478 and 506 of IPC

2. Heard Sri Prajot H.Jaggi, learned counsel representing Ms. Anandita S'Chander, iearned counsel for the petitioners, iea-rned Public Prosecutor representing State and Sri K.S.Suni1, learned counsel, representing M/s Chandrasen Law Offices, for the 2"d respondent/defacto-

complainant. Perused the record.

3. Perusal of the complaints in Cr.No.2O18 and 174 of

2019, charge sheet in C.C.No'14503 of 2019, the Joint Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 72'O1"2O2O, Consent Terms dated 18.02.202 1, would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioners and the 2"d respondent r'vith regard to supply of RBD Palmolein Edible Oil. M/s Sarda by its Agro Oils Private Limited represented Managing Director, Mr. Jagadish Kumar Sarda, agreed to sell 1000 Metric Tonnes of RBD Paimolein Edible Oil, in two lots' 500 Metric Tonnes of oil in four transactions 125 Metric Tonnes each to M/s. K.Trambaklal, vide High seas sale agreements J Kt...t ( tl l) \ot 619-; Dl :t):, tt hottll dated 13.12.2013 22.12.2013. With regard to sale of 375 Metric Tonnes of oil in three lots of 125 Metric Tonnes each, the transaction was complete. With regard to last 125 Metric Tonnes of oii transactions, 23 Metric Tonnes of oil is compiete and with regard to 102 Metric Tonnes ol oil, the transaction is in dispute. M/s. K.Trambaklal, through his Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Ashok Kesharia has lodged a complaint with Police, Nhava Sheva Poiice Station, Mumbai, who registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 42O, 461 and 475 read with 34 of IPC. Afrer completion of investigation, the Investigating Oflicer has filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file as RCC No.49 of

20t7.

4. M/s K.Trambakial, has also fited a suit vide RCS No.71 of 2016 for injunction before the Civil Court of Junior Division, at Uran, Raigad, Maharashtra, against M/s. Sarda Agro Oils Private Limited.

5. With regard to sale of 5OO Metric Tonnes of RBD Palmolein Edibie Oil in two transactions ol 250 Metric Tonnes .i KI,.,J Crl.t'. N0s.6895 of2020 & bqtch dated 13'12'2013 each under two High Seas sale agreements Both the transactions are in dispute' The arrd 22.12.2013.

though filed a complaint with the Police

2.d respondent ' Bahadurpura Police Station, who in turn' registered the same asacaseinCr.No.l63of2o|4againstthepetitionersherein to the Central Crime Station and the same was transferred I

420' 468' 47 and Hyderabad for the offences under Sections as Cr'No'197 of

506 read with 34 of IPC and re-numbered of investigation' the Investigating

2OI4. After completion Officer has filed a charge sheet vide C'C'No'14503 of 2OL9 against the petitioners for the offences under Section 420 read with 34 IPC.

6. The 2''1 respondent had also lodged a complaint u'ith the Police, Bahadurpura Police Station, who registered a case in Cr.No.32 of 2Ol7 for the offences under Sections 42O' 468 and506oflPCandthesamewasquashedbythisCourtvide order dated 30.03.2017 in W'P'No'1052 I of 201'7 and batch' The2.drespondentl-radalsolodgedanothercomplaintwith police, RGI Airport Police Station' Shamshabad' who )

Crl.P. Nos.6895 of 2020 & barch registered a case in Cr.No.8S of 2018 against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.6895 of 2O2O for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The 2"d respondent had also lodged a complaint with the Police, RGI Airport Police Station, Shamshabad, u,ho registered a case in Cr.No.174 of 2019 in Crl.P.No.6897 of 2O2O lor the offences under Sections 420, 468,47 1and 506 ofIPC.

7. The 2nd respondent has also lodged a complaint ."i,ith the Police, Nhava Sheva Police Station, Mumbai, r.r,ho in turn, registered a case in M3 of 2OI9 for the offences under Sections 405, 406,415, 465, 467, 471 and 42O IPC. The allegations in the said crime are almost identical to allegations in Cr.No.197 of 2OI4

8. the above said complaints and suit are out of the A11 same transaction and the same are with regard to sale of RBD Palmolein Edible Oil. There is change in the name of the accused and amount claimed by the 2",1 respondent in the said complaints Crl.P. Nos.6895 of202A & hatch

9. It is relevant to note that during pendency of the above said crimes, the Calendar Case and suit, M/s Sarda Agro Oils Private Limited represented by Mr' Jagadish Kumar Sarda, Mr. Jagadish Kumar Sarda as the First part and K.Trambaklal and Mr.Harish Keshavlal Kesharia as Second part, have entered into MOU dated 12'01'2020 on specific terms and conditions mentioned therein'

10. Mr.Jagadish Kumar Sarda and M/s K'Trambaklal have a-lso entered into Consent Terms dated 18 '02 '2021 on is the specific terms mentioned therein ' There specific mention about the settlement of disputes/claims between the parties and withdrawal of al1 the cases filed against each other and the parties of the Second part have no objection for applying to the custodian of the oil tanker M/s Jethabahai Gopalji represented by its proprietor Mr. Darshak Sachde to complete all formalities and release approximately 500 Metric Tonnes of oil and also to further complete all formalities to transfer the custody in favour of the parties of the First Part etc.

/ KI,.J Crl.P. Nos.6895 o/2020 & barch

11" The details of the cases, accused and transactions etc, are specifically mentioned in the said MOU and the obligations to be complied with by the parties are also specifically mentioned in the MOU and consent terms. It is relevant to note that pursuant to the said MOU and consent terms, the petitioners in all the above said three petitions and 2"d respondent have liled appropriate applications under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. along with affidavit and joint memo of terms seeking permission of the Court to compound the offences and to quash the proceedings in the above said cases.

12. It is also relevant to note that pursuant to the said MOU and Consent Terms on filing appropriate applications, the High Court ol Judicature at Bombay had quashed the proceedings in RCC No.49 of 2017 (arising out of FIR No.M2 of 2014). The suit vide RCS No.71 of 2016 filed by M/s. K.Trambaklal was withdrarvn. Pursuant to the MOU dated 12.01.2O2O and in view of the Consent Terms given by the 2"d respo4ddnt, the Bombay High Court has also quashed the KI''J Crl.P..\'os.6395 of2a)a & hotch the proceedings in Cr.No.M/3 of 2Ol9 pending on the file of the Police, Nhava Sheva Poiice Station.

13. As stated above, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent in the above said three criminal petitions have filed affidavits and joint memo of terms and appropriate applications under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of this Court to quash the above said proceedings by recording compromise. The 2"d respondent had also signed joint memo of compromise and also filed an affidavit. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent u,ent back on the ground that the petitioners herein are not issuing no objection for release of the Palmolein Edible Oi1 for applying to the custodian of the oil ta-nker M/s Jethabahai Gopaiji represetlted by its proprietor Mr. Darshak Sachde to complete all formalities and release the oil and also to further complete ali formalities to transfer the custody in favour of the parties of the parties of the First Part etc.

Crl.P. Nos.6895 of2020 & batch

14. In view of the same, this Court heard learned counsel lor the petitioners, learned counsel appea-ring for the

2"d respondent and learned Public Prosecutor on merits. 15. Sri Prajot H.Jaggi, learned counsel representing Ms.

Anandita S Chander, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the transactions between the petitioners and the 2od respondent are commercial transactions and the szune are with regard to sale ol RBD Palmolein Edibie Oil. There is no element of cheating and inducement. The contents of the complaints in Cr.No.85 of 2018, lZ4 of 2019 and charge sheet in C.C.No.14503 of 20l9 lacks ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. Despite entering into MOU, dated 12.01.2020 and Consent Terms dated 18.02.2021 and the terms of conditions specifically mentioned therein, the 2nd respondent is not cooperating in quashing the above said two crimes and the proceedings in C.C.No. 14503 of 2019. The transactions between the petitioners ald the 2"d respondent are commercia_l and civil in nature. The said transactions are relating to the year 2013 KI,,J Crl.P. itos.6895 of2020 & batch and the 2ncl responclent has lodged the above said complaints after lapse of 5 years. Thus, there is delay of 5 years in lodging complaints. Since the transactions are civil and in nature, the 2"'t respondent' instead of filing commercial suit for recovery of motley or initiating civil proceedings' lodged the above said complaints to recover the money which is barred by limitation' There is no breach of trust committed by the petitioners herein and the contents of complaints and charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section 406 of IPC' With thesaidcontentions,learnedcounseiforthepetitioners sought to quash the above said crimes and also the proceedings in C.C.No.14503 of 20i9'

for the

16. Whereas, learned counsel appearing 2nd respondent would submit that there are specific allegations in the above said two against the petitioners/ accused complaints ancl charge sheet in C'C'No'14503 of 20 19" There are several triable issues to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer and to be decided by the trial Court after conducting trial. The petitioners have to cooperate with the ll It I I Crl.l'. Nos.6895 of2020 & batch Investigating Oflicer in the above said two crimes and trial Court in concluding investigation and trial in the above said C.C.No.14503 of 2019. Therefore, the petitioners herein, instead of facing trial and cooperating with the Investigating Officer, filed the present petitions to quash the proceedings in the above two crimes and charge sheet. The petitioners are not cooperating with the 2"a respondent/ defacto-complainant 1n getting oi1 released from the custodian in terms of the MOU and Consent Terms though the 2na respondent ]S interested to record compromise in terms of the joint memo. The petitioners failed to discharge their part of obligation in terms of the said MOU and Consent Terms. Therefore, they fault.

cannot blame the 2"d respondent for their o!\rn With the said contentions he sought to dismiss the present petitions.

17. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, \(,ou1d submit that the disputes are civil and commercial in nature and there are several factual aspects to be investigated into i

I by the Investigating Officer in the above said trvo crimes and

Crl.P. Nos.6895 of2020 & balch the trial Court has to consider the contents of the charge sheet in C.C.No.14503 of 201'9 and therefore, the same may not be quashed by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. With the said contentions, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petitions.

18. As stated above, in the above said two complaints in Cr.No.85 of 20 18 and 174 of 2019 and charge sheet in

14503 of 2019, the transactions between the C.C.No.

petitioners/accused and the 2"d respondent/defacto- complainant are with regard to sale of RBD Palmolein Edible Oil. There are disputes with regard to one transaction of 725 Metric Tonnes of oil in the first lot and 250 Metric Tonnes of oil each in two transactions in the second lot. Therefore, two complaints were registered in Nhava Sheva Police Station and also a suit vide RCS No.71 of 2016 was fi1ed. The said tu'o complaints were quashed by the Bombay High Court in vieu' of the compromise entered between the parties and M / s Trambaklal has also withdrawn said suit vide RCS No'71 of l3 KI,,J Crl.P. Nos.6895 of2020 & batch

2016 in view of the Consent Terms and the MOU, dated

12.O1.2020.

19. In MOU dated 12.01.2020 at clause No.2, there is specific mention about the withdrawal of complaints against each other and a-lso the claims. It is specifically mentioned that both the parties to the said agreements that parties of the Second part shall issue No Objection Certificate for the release of approximate 500 Metric Tonnes to IMC Limited situated in the premises of the JNpT port and to police concerned for withdrawal of the oil and the parties of the Second part shal1 also issue No objection certificate to the Nhava Sheva Police to release the oil. At clause No.3 of the said MOU, the parties have specifically agreed that the parties of the Second part has no objection for the party of First part applying to the custodian of the Oil Tanker M/s Kethabahai Gopal ji represented by its proprietor Mr.

Darshak Sachde to complete a-ll formalities and release approximately 500 Metric Tonnes of oil and arso to further complete all forma_lities to transfer the custody in favour of l i.+

Crl.P. N0s.6895 of202A & barch the parties of the First party (in case the custodian wants any instruction, it shall be provided by the parties of the Second party which shall be at the cost and consideration of the parties of the First party).A11 costs and charges to be paid for release and removal of the subject oi1, being subject matter therein, shall be soiely borne by the parties of the First part. The details of the complaints, crimes, accused and offences are specifically mentioned.

20. It is also agreed that the parties have to withdraw all claims against each other. The consent terms dated 18.02.2021 are a-lso on the same lines as that of the MOU dated 12.01.2020. Pursuant to the said MOU and Consent Terms, Mr.Ashok Keshavlal Kesharia, the GPA holder of M/s K.Trambaklal, the accused in both the above said crimes and C.C.No.14503 of 2019 rrad filed afiidavit in Crl.P.No. 3331 of 2O2l before the Bombay High Court stating that he has no objection for the proceedings in RCC No'49 of 2017 arising out of Cr.No.M2 of 2Ol4 registered with Nhava Sheva Police Station, Bombay are quashed and 500 Metric Tonnes of l5 Crl.P. Nos.6895 of2020 & batch goods seized are released in favour of Mr.Jagadish Kumar Sarda.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the Consent Terms, No Objection Certificate issued in favour of M/s. Sarda Agro Oils Limited, by Mr. Ashok Kesavlal Kesharia, GPA holder of Mr. K.Trambaklal, would submit that he has submitted the said No Objection Certificate to the Police, Nhava Sheva Police Station stating that he has no objection and he is giving consent for release of the subject goods in favour of M/s Sarda Agro Oil Limited subject to complying with the terms mentioned in Clause No.4 of the MOU dated l2.Ol.2O2O. Thus, according to the iearned counsel, the petitioners have complied with the obligations cast upon them vide MOU, dated l2.Ol.2O2O and Consent Terms dated I8.O2.2O21.

22. Referring to the order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran, dated 23.02.2021, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that M/s Trambaklal represented by his GPA holder Mr.Ashok Keshavlal Kesharia had \ \

xL..t Crl.P. Nos.6895 of2a2A & hetch withdrawn the suit vide RCS No.71 of 2016 in terms of the said MOU and Consent Terms.

23. Referring to the orders dated 14 .07 .2021 in Cr1.W.P.No.251 of 2019 and dated lO,O3.2O2l in W'P.No.890 of 2021, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Bombay High Court, quashed the above said two crimes pending on the file of Nhava Sheva Police Station in terms of the above said MOU and Consent Terms and also on reporting no objection by M/s Trambaklal represented by its GPA holder Ashok Mr.Ashok Keshavlal Kesharia. Therefore, there is no violation of the terms in the MOU and Consent Terms, by the petitioners/ accused in the above said trvo crimes and C.C.No.14503 of 2019. Il is the 2"d respondent joint who is going back, despite filing affidavit and memo of terms seeking to record compromise and quash the above said crimes artd proceedings in the Calendar Case.

24. As stated above in all the above said three criminal petitions, the 2.d respondent has filed an affidavit referring to the above said MOU dated 12.01.2O2A and Consent Terms Crl.P. Nos.6895 oJ 2a20 & butch dated 18.02.2021, specifically mentioning that he has no objection for the proceedings arising out of the above said two crimes and C.C.No.14503 of 2Ol9 are to be quashed. Similar terms are mentioned in the joint memo of compromise filed by the petitioners arrd the 2"d respondent/ defacto-

complainant In the joint memo ol compromise also, there is specific mention about the compounding of the offences and permission sought and also to quash the proceedings in the above said two crimes and the proceedings in C.C.No.14SO3 of 2019.

25. The above said discussion and facts \ rou1d reveal that the transactions between the parties are commercial and civil in nature. The contentions of the complaint in the above stated crimes and charge sheet in C.C.No.14503 of 2019 Iacks ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners/ accused. There is no inducement by the accused and there is no criminal beach of trust. If the parties are aggrieved, they have to approach the concerned civil Court but instead of doing so, the 2"d respondent/defacto-

l8 Kt...t Crl.P. Nos.6895 of2020 & barclt complainant has lodged the above said complaints against the petitioners/ accused

26. Realizing the said facts that the disputes/ transactions are commercial in nature, the parties have entered into the compromise and thc same were reduced into u'riting by u'ay of MOU, dated 12.01.2020 and consent terms dated lB.O2.2O2l on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. Even then, the 2nd respondent is now going back on the ground that the petitioners are not giving no objection for release of the said stock. It is relevant to mention that there is specific mention about no objection and M/s. K.l'rambakla1, represented by his GPA holder Mr.Ashok Keshavlal Kesharia, has already issued no objection certificate, dated 12.01.2021 to the Inspector of Police, Nhava Sheva Police Station. It is also relevant to note that the crimes registered at the instance of the said M/s.Trambaklal represented by his GPA holder have been quashed by the Bombay High Court and on the consent given by the said GPA holder and he has also withdrawn the suit {L J (i-! p ,\o) 6E9-j o./.2020 (i batct)

No.71 of

2016" Thus, he has completed his part of obligations.

The 2.,i respondent has to complete his part of obligations by withdrawing the present crimes anctr proceedings in C.C.No. 14503 of 2019. However, as stated above, the transactions are civil and commercial in nature"

The contents of the complaints in Cr.No.B5 of

2018, Cr.No. tZ4 of 2Ol9 and charge sheet in C.C.No. l4SO3 of 2019 lacks ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein.

27. Viewed from any angle, the proceedings in the above saicl trvo crimes and the Calendar Case are liable to be quashed.

28. In the result, these three Criminal petitions are allowed quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.BS of

2O1B and Cr.No.174 of 2Ol9 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, RGI Airport police Station, Shamshabad and aiso the proceedings in C.C.No.14503 of 2019 pending on the file of the XII Additionai Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the respective petitioners herein.

Crt.P. Nos.6895 of2020 & batch petitions' pending if any'

miscellaneous Consequently, shali stand closed'

in these criminal Petitions Sd/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REG t.IS 'TRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Xll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate ' Hyderabad

2, The Additional XIV l/letropolitan tvlagistrate, at Rajendernagar ' cyberabad .

3. The Station House Officer' RGI Airport Police Station ' Shamshabad'

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI ANINDITA S CHANDER Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to SRl. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES Advocate IOPUCI

7. Two CD CoPies 8. One SPare CoPY ^\

HIGH COURT DATED:0810312022 \

1Yle STA c k

25 MAR 2m2 I

7'-!