Allowed

Dhruv S/O Rajesh Sood v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2016APL/1249/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to quash a criminal complaint for cheating. Relying on Narinder Singh, the held that where the complainant received funds with interest and voluntarily settled the dispute, the complaint is a fit case for quashing despite the applicant being in custody elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

The complaint filed by the complainant is quashed.

Dhruv S/O Rajesh Sood Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

YBG

912-apl-1249-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

APPLICATION NO.1249 OF 2016

¶6

Dhruv S/o. Rajesh Sood .. Applicant - Versus - State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Akhilesh Singh i/b. Sandeep Singh for applicant Dr. F.R.Sahikh, APP for State

¶8

Mr. Manish Dubey for respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : V.M.KANADE & MS.NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 8^th December 2016.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1] Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned APP for State and learned Counsel for respondent No.2, original complainant. The original complainant is present in court today.

¶12

2] The complainant had filed a complaint against the applicant for offences punishable under section 420 and 34 of IPC. It is alleged that the applicant promised to give the complainant a job in Dubai and on that pretext demanded certain amount from the complainant which was paid to him by the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he did not receive air ticket for Dubai. Even the period within which he was to

YBG

912-apl-1249-16

report to Dubai expired. The respondent No.2 submits that he has now received the entire amount and he is working in Mumbai and that he has amicably settled the dispute with the accused. The complainant who is present in court has filed an affidavit in reply to the aforesaid effect. Taking into consideration the above facts we are of the view that the ratio in the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 S.C.C. 466, will squarely apply to the present case.

¶17

3] The applicant No.1 is in custody in respect of one other similar case. Therefore, he is not present before the court. Since the complainant does not wish to pursue the matter any further and since the complainant has received his money with interest and he is now working in Mumbai, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the complaint filed by the complainant can be quashed. The application is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Application is disposed of.

¶18

(MS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J) (V.M.KANADE, J)

Dhruv S/O Rajesh Sood v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruv S/O Rajesh Sood 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thea Ajit Dsuuza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Babu Sethe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Zafar Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Satish Cargo Movers, Chandmori Nagaland Vs the State of Maharashtra Home Dept. (Transport) and Ors.

Amit Dhanishankar Upadhyay Vs Sr. Inspector and Ors.

Rijul Naresh Gosar Vs Anthony Gyanchandra Nadar and Anr.