AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
Mr. Nikhil H. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice on behalf of non-applicant no.1.
Ms. B. N. Gavhale, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of non-applicant no.2/complainant.
By this application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicants seek quashing of First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 230/2026 dated 12.06.2026 registered with Police Station, Mankapur, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) on the ground of settlement between the parties.
The FIR indicates that the complainant and his family members were maintaining their respective accounts in Axis Bank, Friends Colony branch, Nagpur. In December, 2025, applicant no.1 was appointed as Relationship Manager responsible for handling the bank accounts of the complainant and his family members. On 06.06.2026, when the complainant checked his bank account he found a deficit of Rs.23,34,000/-. It is alleged that applicant no.1 on the pretext of investing the money in different Mutual Funds, dishonestly transferred the amount from time to time from the bank account of the complainant and his relatives to the bank accounts of applicant no.2 and other co-accused Ankit Panjabrao Ingle and thereby committed the breach of trust and misappropriated the complainant’s money for their own use. On the basis of said report, the FIR came to be registered against the applicants.
Heard Mr. Nazim Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant no.1/State and Ms. Bhagyashree Gavhale, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.2/ complainant. Though, the notice is yet to be issued to the non-applicants, non-applicant no.2/complainant suo-motu appears in person through his counsel.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant tenders her Vakalatnama along with written submissions on affidavit across the bar stating that after various deliberations, the complainant and the applicants have resolved their differences and the matter has been settled amongst themselves. The affidavit is taken on record and marked as “Exh.X” for identification.
The complainant has stated in the affidavit that the FIR was registered due to some misunderstanding between him and the applicants. It is further stated in the affidavit that the applicants have repaid the amount of Rs. 23,34,047/- through Demand Drafts towards the full and final settlement of the dispute. It is contended that the complainant does not want to continue with the criminal prosecution against the applicants and he has no objection if the FIR lodged against the applicants is quashed.
The complainant is present in-person before the Court today. He is duly identified by his counsel. On an inquiry with the complainant, he has reiterated the facts stated in the affidavit. The complainant has stated that he does not want to proceed against the applicants and other co-accused Ankit Panjabrao Ingale, in whose account the amount from the account of the complainant was allegedly transferred by applicant no.1. He further contended that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed against co-accused Ankit Ingale also.
Learned APP for the State raised an objection to the settlement arrived between the parties on the ground that some offences registered against the applicants are non-compoundable in nature. Hence, the parties cannot settle the dispute amongst themselves.
With regards to the compoundability of offence, the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed in para 29.4 as under :
“ 29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
The present dispute appears to be of a private nature. It also does not involve any issue affecting the society at large. Since, the complainant has received the entire amount from the applicants, he does not want to prosecute the applicants and the other co-accused for the alleged offences. In order to maintain harmony in their relation, the complainant and the applicants have settled the dispute out of the Court. Though, some of the offences are non-compoundable, considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties out of the Court, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. Therefore, a case is made out for exercising inherent powers of the Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (old Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.) to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
The Criminal Application is allowed.
First Information Report bearing No. 230/2026 dated 11.06.2026 registered with Police Station, Mankapur, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the applicants and co-accused Ankit Panjabrao Ingale, subject to the applicants depositing costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in the “Public Welfare Account” maintained with the Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur, bearing Account No. 129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978, within two weeks from today.
The application stands disposed of in the above terms.