Dismissed

Ammar M. Tambawala and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Nov 2012APL/418/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for breach of trust and cheating. The Court held that there was no inordinate delay violating section 468 Cr.P.C. and the prima facie material constituted a cognizable offence, rejecting the claim that it was a civil dispute. An application fee was directed to be refunded to the State.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application was rejected; Rs. 5,000 application fee directed to be paid to the State.

Ammar M. Tambawala and Ors. Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

vrd 1 APL418/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.418 OF 2012

¶5

Ammar Tambawala and others ...Applicants v/s

¶6

State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr Yusuf Iqbal with Mr Neville Majre and Ms Bijal Gandhi i/b M/s Yusuf and Associates for Applicants. Mr S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶10

DATED : 19TH NOVEMBER 2012.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

Heard extensively. The applicants seek quashing of C.C. No.1173/PW/2010 arising out of C.R. No.34 of 2006 pending on the file of the learned

¶13

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19^th Court

¶14

Esplanade, Mumbai for offence punishable under

¶15

section 406 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶16

During the course of submissions, the learned APP by reference to page 37 of the

¶17

application informs that there was earlier criminal

¶18

vrd 2 APL418/12

¶19

application No.3276 of 2010 moved by the applicants before this Court for quashing the FIR in which State had filed affidavit on 28^th July 2010.

¶20

The learned counsel for applicants submits that the said criminal application has been withdrawn. He accepts candidly that it is not

¶21

referred in the present application seeking quashing.

¶22

No revision is preferred by the present

¶23

applicants and directly an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is moved.

¶24

The gravamen of submissions of the learned counsel for applicants are there is inordinate

¶25

delay in lodging the prosecution, consequently power under section 468 of Cr.P.C. Comes into operation warranting quashment of the present proceedings. Secondly, no offence is made out for invoking provisions under section 406 r/w section 34 of IPC.

¶26

vrd 3 APL418/12

¶27

The case propounded by the respondent No.2 – original complainant was, there was a contract between the Department of Atomic Energy with the accused applicants in respect of supply of lead

¶28

ingots. The applicants were expected to furnish accounts of unused lead, they did not do so and consequently around 17.9851 MT lead ingots remained with the applicants as the firm returned only 2.56

¶29

communicated to the Police by letter dated 23^rd March 2006 seeking intervention of Police by taking appropriate action including unauthorised user of lead by the firm of the applicants amounting to Rs.11,33,055/-.

¶30

Based on the above letter, FIR dated 29^th

¶31

March 2006 for offence punishable under sections 406, 420 of IPC is initiated against the applicants. Charge-sheet is filed on 30^th December 2010.

¶32

The canvass projected in the matter, if one

¶33

reads the FIR and the letter dated 23^rd March 2006

¶34

vrd 4 APL418/12

¶35

makes out a case that there is no delay on the part of the complainant – Atomic Energy. The period for

¶36

prosecution is three years even if one takes

¶37

recourse under section 468 Cr.P.C. The FIR as could

¶38

be seen dated 29^th March 2006, delay in filing charge-sheet dated 30^th December 2010 will not

¶39

defeat the claim of the complainant or infraction of section 468 Cr.P.C.

¶40

The other facet raised in the matter is,

¶41

that no offence is made out, however, reading the

¶42

FIR and the compilation of final report, it is apparent the accused applicants did not account

¶43

unused metal lead for which there was communication

¶44

and last such communication was dated 17^th January

¶45

It cannot be said, as the learned counsel desires to rely upon the observations of learned additional Sessions Judge while entertaining application under section 438 of Cr.P.C., that the

¶46

matter more leans to civil controversy. The prima

¶47

facie material implicates the applicants for for offence under section 406 r/w 34 of IPC. Thus, no

¶48

vrd 5 APL418/12 case for interference under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶49

The conduct of the applicants in suppression of facts also calls for condemnation. Application is rejected with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the State directly upto 17^th December 2012. The observations are prima facie in its character.

Ammar M. Tambawala and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammar M. Tambawala and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Manchak Tukaram Tidole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayur Batra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinkar Vithal Patil and Ors. Vs Hukumsingh Bhawarsingh Rajpurohit and Ors.

Rrb Energy Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rrb Energy Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vasant Ravji Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.