Kantilal S. Mehta
& Ors. Vs. R. Nandev & Ors.  INSC 1274 (1 August 2008)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1197-1199 OF 2008 (Arising out of
S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.35-37 of 2005) Kantilal S. Mehta & Ors. ...Appellant(s)
Versus R. Nandev & Ors. ...Respondent(s) WITH
Civil Appeal No.4754 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17124 of 2008) O R D
E R Heard learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the
records show that Criminal Petition Nos.5273/2000, 5345/2000, 5342/2000 and
5380/2000 filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing the proceedings of CC Nos.1744/1999, 1745/1999,
1746/1999 and 1747/1999 pending in the Court of XIth Metropolitan Magistrate,
Secunderabad, were dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide common
order dated 22.7.2004. That order has been challenged in these appeals, except
insofar as it pertains to Criminal Petition No.5380 of 2000 because petitioner
of that case has not challenged the High Court's refusal to quash the
proceedings of the criminal ....2/- -2- case. Another case registered as CC
No.789 of 2001 is also pending in the Court of XIth Metropolitan Magistrate,
Secunderabad. Apart from the criminal cases, Civil Suit bearing O.S.
No.170/1999 filed by some of the non-petitioners is pending in the Court of
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. In that case, the
petitioners filed an application for grant of leave to defend, which was dismissed
by the Trial Court. CRP No.794/2001 filed against the order of the trial Court
was partly allowed by the High Court and leave to defend was granted subject to
the condition of deposit of 50% amount claimed by the plaintiffs. That order is
under challenge in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17124 of 2008.
Learned counsel for
the appellants stated that the disputes between the parties in all the four
complaint cases as well as the suit have been settled and, pursuant to the
settlement, entire money has been paid to the complainants of the complaint
cases and the plaintiffs of the civil suit. He also stated that Memorandum of
Understanding has been entered into by the parties, original of which has been
filed in this Court along with an affidavit.
appearing on behalf of the respondents had taken time on the last occasion to
seek instruction from his clients. Today, he stated that his clients have not
given the required instructions and, therefore, he is not in a position to make
We have gone through
the Memorandum of Understanding and are satisfied that the parties have settled
their disputes and as such, it would be just and expedient to quash the
prosecution of the accused persons in all the four cases to meet the ends of
justice in spite of the fact that dismissal of Criminal Petition No.5380/2000
has not been challenged before this Court. We are also satisfied that
proceedings of CC No.789/2001 deserve to be quashed.
....3/- -3- In the
result, we allow the criminal appeals and quash proceedings of all the accused
persons in CC Nos.1744/1999, 1745/1999, 1746/1999, 1747/1999 pending in the
Court of XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, within the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The proceedings of CC No.789/2001 pending in that Court are also
So far as the civil
suit is concerned, prayer has been made in the Memorandum of Understanding for
its withdrawal. In view of this, civil suit bearing O.S. No.170 of 1999,
pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at
Secunderabad, within the State of Andhra Pradesh is transferred to this Court
and is disposed of as withdrawn.
criminal appeals and the civil appeal are disposed of.
Delhi, August 01, 2008.
Pages: 1 2 3