Mumbai: Veteran actor Saira Banu Khan last week gave her consent to the quashing of a criminal cheating case lodged by her against a builder in 2021 over a 2010 agreement for developing a prime plot at 16, Pali Hill, Bandra (West), along with a bungalow on it, which belonged to her late husband, thespian Dilip Kumar.

The Bombay high court bench of Justices N W Sambre and S U Deshmukh on June 13 considered the “amicable settlement” between the parties and quashed the 2021 first information report (FIR) registered against Prajita Developers Pvt Ltd and builders Altaf Wahedna and Arshad Wahedna in Bandra police station. Saira Banu is the power of attorney (POA) holder of Dilip Kumar.

The FIR was based on non-performance of the development agreement assigned by Kumar through his POA to Prajita Developers for developing his land, said the builders’ lawyer Satyam Nimbalkar, seeking orders to quash it, as he said a settlement had been reached with Saira Banu who unconditionally withdrew all allegations. The dispute gave rise to multiple court proceedings and led to the filing of arbitration proceedings last year as it was a civil dispute, argued Nimbalkar. The builder filed a quashing petition this year.

“The offence is based on the non-performance of the promise as made in the deed of assignment dated 20/04/2010,” noted the HC order, adding, “The aforesaid differences between the parties has led to filing of the arbitration proceedings giving rise to commercial arbitration.”

The builder and Saira Banu had tendered consent terms before the HC in the arbitration petition and in March the dispute was disposed of, based on the consent terms, noted the HC bench.

Saira Banu, represented by advocate Ekta Dalvi, appeared before the bench via video-conferencing in view of her health. The bench noted she had “in categorical terms” confirmed her consent for quashing the FIR. Her affidavit said she was the sole heir and representative of the late Yusuf Khan alias Dilip Kumar and the complaint was lodged due to a “misunderstanding” and the dispute, “purely civil in nature,” was “resolved amicably”.