NALINI SHANKARAN AND ORS. versus NEELKANTH MAHADEO KAMBLE AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NALINI SHANKARAN AND ORS. 
v. 
~ 
NEELKANTH MAHADEO KAMBLE AND ORS. 
.. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Criminal case filed 
against accused by Chief Managing trustee of the trust-Quashing of 
c 
proceedings-Held: Since the trust and accused persons entered into a 
compromise, continuance of criminal proceedings in the criminal case sheer 
abuse of process of law-Thus, proceedings quashed 
A Trust and accused persons entered into an agreement to carry out 
construction work. Since the construction work was not carried out as per 
D the agreement, the complainant-respondent No.I in his capacity as Chief 
Managing Trustee of a trust filed criminal case against the accused. 
Magistrate issued process against the accused. Accused filed criminal revision 
challenging the process issued. It was contended that since the parties had 
( 
entered into a compromise, the proceedings should not be continued. Sessions 
Judge rejected the revision. Appellants filed petition under section 482 CrPC 
fl 
E to quash the order of Sessions Judge and the proceedings in the Criminal 
Case. Petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In view of what has been held in respect of the connected civil 
F suit which was held to be not maintainable in view of the compromise arrived 
at by the Trust and accused persons, the continuance of proceedings will be 
sheer abuse of the process of law. Thus, the order of the High Court is set 
r 
aside and proceedings in Criminal· Case stand quashed. [Para 71 [375-Fj 
-
G 
Ravi Construction Co. v. Somvanshi Arya Kshatriya Samaj and Ors., 
(2006) 9 SCALE 174, relied on. 
CRIMrNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 
1999. 
~ 
' 
H 
372 
f-. ' 
NALINI SHANKARANr. NEELKANTH MAHADEOKAMBLE[PASA YAT,J.] 
373 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 3.12.1998 of the High Court A 
of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal A. No. 173/1997. 
S. Bhatnagar and Rekha Palli for the Appellants. 
Sushi! Karanjkar, Vishwajit Singh, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and 
Gautam Godara for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the petition 
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the C 
'Code'). A prayer was made to quash the order of learned JMFC, Kalyan 
dated 2.12.1996 and the proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No.248of1991. 
2. The criminal case No. 248 of 1991 was initiated by the Respondent 
No.1-Neelkanth Mahadeo Kamble alleging commission of offences punishable 
under Sections 418, 409, 166 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in D 
short the '!PC'). The complainant-respondent No.I filed the complaint in his 
capacity of Chief Managing Trustee of Somvashi Arya Samaj Trust, the Trust 
registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. As per the facts given in the 
complaint, the Trust owned and possessed certain land within the limits of 
Kalyan Municipal Corporation. The accused approached the trust with the E 
proposal of development of the aforesaid land. As a consequence, an agreement 
came to be executed between the Trust and the accused Nos. I and 2 on 
7.7.1985. Under this agreement, accused Nos.I and 2 agreed to construct at 
their own cost a multi-purpose community hall with an area of 4,500 sq. ft. 
as per the specifications given in the agreement. This hall was to be 
constructed on an area of about 13,500 sq. ft. which was to be demarcated F 
and bounded by compound wall to be constructed by the accused. In 
consideration thereof, the accused Nos. I and 2 were to get all the rights of 
development of the remaining land. Total land was 9952.25 sq. yards. Further, 
according to the complainant in this agreement no cash consideration was 
shown in favour of the trust and therefore as per the directions given by the G 
Charity Commissioner, some nominal consideration ofRs.50,000/- or so was 
subsequently added by consent of the accused. 
3. In short, it is the case of the complainant that even though the 
accused were under legal and contractual obligation to complete the 
construction of the community hall of the size and specifications given in the H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A complaint, they did not do so initially, sold the construction, earned crores 
of rupee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.