Allowed

Suraj Arvind Thakare v. the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Sonegaon

Bombay HC29 Jul 2013APL/39/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Application seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating in a plot sale transaction, the Court observed that the dispute was purely private and amicably settled. Relying on prior precedent, the Bench quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 108/2011 is quashed and set aside only as against the applicant.

Suraj Arvind Thakare Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. P.S… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 apl39-12.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶3

Criminal Application (APL) No.39 of 2012

¶4

Suraj Arvind Thakare, Aged about 25 years, Occu. Business, R/o 203, VrundavanApartment Jaidurga No.03, Manish Nagar, Nagpur.. ..... Applicant .

¶5

:: Versus ::

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O., P.S. – Sonegaon, Nagpur. District Nagpur.

¶7

Amiya s/o Harabar Lenka, Aged about 50 years, Proprietor M/s Amiya Constructions, R/o 50, Chhoti Dhantoli, Nagpur. .... Respondents .

¶8

============================================== Shri A.B. Mirza, counsel for Applicant. Shri R.S. Nayak, APP for R-1. Shri J.C. Shukla, counsel for R-2.

¶9

==============================================

¶10

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &

¶11

P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ . DATED : 29^th JULY, 2013.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B.R.Gavai, J.)

¶13

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by

¶14

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶15

.....2/-

¶16

2 apl39-12.odt

¶17

The applicant has filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report (F.I.R.) bearing No. 108/2011 dated 19.10.2011.

¶18

The F.I.R is lodged at the instance of respondent no. 2 complainant alleging therein that the complainant had entered into a transaction with the present application for sale of the plot of the applicant. It is the case of the complainant that the applicant had received a substantial amount from the complainant and thus cheated him.

¶19

It appears that the case in question was on account of transaction between the parties to purchase a plot.

¶20

The matter has been now amicably settled between the parties and the parties have filed joint pursis which is duly signed by the parties as well as their respective counsels.

¶21

The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported at (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held that in a private dispute between two parties where no element of public law is involved, this Court by invoking the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could quash the criminal proceedings. In the present

¶22

.....3/-

¶23

3 apl39-12.odt

¶24

case, it is clearly seen that the dispute between the parties is clearly a private dispute and no element of public law is involved.

¶25

In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. The F.I.R. Bearing no. 108/11 dated 19.10.2011 is quashed and set aside only as against the present applicant.

¶26

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as

to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

Hirekhan

...../-

Suraj Arvind Thakare v. the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Sonegaon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Arvind Thakare v. the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Sonegaon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhukar Krushnarao Sawarkar and Another Vs Rajkumar Shrivallabh Mundhada and Others

Diwaldas Sawaldas Nandanwar Vs Kanhaiyalal Hariram Kabra

Arun Surajdin Jaiswal and Others Vs Additional Commissioner

Kaduba Yadav Dhandar (Prisoner, C-2028) Vs D.I.G. Prisons (East), Nagpur and Another

Pankaj @ Sonu @ Cheri S/O Sadashiv Rautkar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O

Anuradha Sugar Mills Ltd. Thr. Its Office Supdt. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola and Anr.