Allowed

Yashwant Lalji Gadge and Anr. v. State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2011WP/255/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed the criminal prosecution against petitioners accused of cheating. The Court held the underlying transaction regarding a vehicle sale and promissory note was of a civil nature, with evidence indicating a loan arrangement rather than fraud.

What did the court decide?

The criminal prosecution against the petitioners is quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute.

Yashwant Lalji Gadge and Anr. Vs State of Mah and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Cri.W.P. No.255/2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.255 OF 2010

¶5

1.	Yashwant s/o Lalji Gadge, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri./Social work, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded.
2.	Arun s/o Lalji Gadge, Age 30 years, Occ. Service, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded ... PETITIONERS
	VERSUS
1.	State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Biloli Police Station, Biloli, District Nanded.
2.	Digambar Vitthalrao Kulkarni, Age 45 years, Occ. Advocate R/o Gandhi Chowk, Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A Shri K	..... .P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners .M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. .....
	CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
	DATE : 24th January, 2011.
ORAL	JUDGMENT :

¶6

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

¶7

¶8

Cri.W.P. No.255/2010

¶9

The complainant, an Advocate (respondent in the Writ Petition), even after service, is absent.

¶10

The complainant (respondent No.2 came with a case that the petitioner, in need of money to contest election, had agreed to sell his vehicle to respondent No.2 for Rs.75,000/-. However, since he needed the vehicle for election programme, he executed a promissory note on 6.1.2007 for having received Rs.75,000/- in presence of two witnesses as a hand loan. Reading the promissory note, it is explicit, it was a hand loan transaction, being witnessed by two persons. The respondent No.2 being an Advocate, when was able to get the promissory note, there was no inhibition for him to get regular agreement executed of sale of the vehicle or getting the same through R.T.O. This itself illustrate that the transaction was of a civil nature, a different colour is given, to cause pressure upon the petitioner to succumb to the unjust uncalled for demand. This Court, while entertaining pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner, observed in para 6 on 21.9.2007 that prima facie, dispute appears to be of a civil nature. Having gone through the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, dated 18.1.2010, rejecting the discharge application moved below Exh. 27 in R.C.C. No.118/2007, I find, the learned Judge, though accepted the legal position,

¶11

¶12

Cri.W.P. No.255/2010

¶13

however, felt that there was an element of cheating on the part of the petitioners, and declined to discharge. The very recital of the promissory note would have categorically made the picture clear, if it is read exhaustively which has been lacking. Consequently, the order of issuance of process or thereafter not to entertain the discharge application (Exh. 27) calls for interference. The accusations under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code could not be coined, taking the complaint as a whole from any angle even if the defence of the petitioner is not considered. Writ Petition allowed. The criminal prosecution against

¶14

the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

¶15

K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE

Yashwant Lalji Gadge and Anr. v. State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Lalji Gadge and Anr. v. State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javed Khan Azam Khan Vs the State of Mah

Ashok Vishwanath Khilari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deelip Yamaji Dabhade Vs State of Maharashtra

Dipak Nathu Kalner Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sindhubai Kakasaheb Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sunil Ambar Patil Vs Prabhudas Holaram Puraswani