Disposed

Sudha Manubhai Kapadia and Anr. v. Genius Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2011WP/461/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special leave to travel petition was filed by accused No. 4 in a cheating and criminal trespass case. While granting leave to travel, the single judge refused to quash proceedings due to the prima facie case under IPC Section 420, noting the dispute arose from a civil tenancy agreement.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) only regarding leave to travel; criminal proceedings not quashed.

Sudha Manubhai Kapadia and Anr. Vs Genius Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Bombay HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 WP-461-11.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Mhi

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 461 OF 2011

¶5

Mrs. Sudha Riad Fyzee nee Sudha Manubhai Kapadia & Anr.

¶6

..Petitioners/

¶7

Original accused Nos.3 & 4

¶8

vs.

¶9

M/s. Genius Printers Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ganesh Gole i/b. Krishna Sharma Advocate, for the petitioners Ms. U.V.Kejriwal, APP,. for the respondent No.2 - State.

¶11

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th March, 2011.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Rule was issued on the last date and was made returnable on

¶14

4.3.2011. The petitioner No.2 has filed affidavit of service. None appears for the

¶15

respondent No.1, who is the original complainant.

¶16

The complaint has been filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and is registered as Criminal Case No.0500028/SW/2007 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar. The main allegation in the complaint is that accused

¶17

persons had assured the complainant to give the premises on rent at the rate of Rs.

¶18

2 WP-461-11.sxw

¶19

35,000/- per month and amount of Rs.35,000/- was actually paid by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant carried out certain repairs and spent amount of Rs.13 lakh. However, before the work could be completed, the accused persons threw out the workers and locked the premises. The offence arises out of a civil dispute pertaining the agreement of tenancy or leave and license.

¶20

The petitioner No.2, who is accused No.4, seeks leave to travel out of India as and when required. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I see no reason why he should not be permitted. However, taking into consideration the allegations, prima facie case is made out under Section 420 of IPC and, therefore, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings.

¶21

For the aforesaid reasons, Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) only. Petition stands disposed of.

Sudha Manubhai Kapadia and Anr. v. Genius Printers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Manubhai Kapadia and Anr. v. Genius Printers Pvt. Ltd. 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

J.K. Ice Vs Malgave Milk and Milk Products and Anr.

Dilip Gulabrai Badlani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Munir Ahmed Mohdali Nisargi Vs the State of Maharashtra

D. S. Girish Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Wytewater Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Hikal Limited and Anr.

Deelipmanohar Kulthe Alias Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.