Allowed

Mr.Suryakumar Doraiswamy Shivasagaran v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Oct 2016APL/241/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes two FIRs registered on complaint by the second respondent based on a Judicial Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court held that the underlying dispute was commercial and had been fully settled with charity donations, meaning the offences had a civil flavour and did not affect society.

What did the court decide?

FIRs dated 10.1.2015 and 19.3.2015 registered with Swargate Police Station, Pune, were quashed and set aside.

Mr.Suryakumar Doraiswamy Shivasagaran Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

apl241-1114

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2015

¶5

Suryakumar Doraiswamy Shivsagaran ...Applicant
vs.
State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents

¶6

ALONG WITH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1114 OF 2016

¶8

Shri Nitin N. Baraskar ...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶9

Ms Gauri Jadhav i/b Mr.Tushar Jadhav for the
applicant in APL 241/2015 and for respondent No.2 in
APL/1114/2016

¶10

Mr.Tejesh Dane a/w Mr.Bharat Gadhavi i/b Tejesh
Dande & Associates for the applicant in APL
1114/2016 and for the respondent No.2 in
APL/241/2015

¶11

Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for respondent No.1 in both the
applications.

¶12

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶13

 DATE : OCTOBER 25, 2016

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1Rule. In Criminal Application No.241 of 2016
the learned counsel for the second respondent waives
service, the learned APP waives service for the
first respondent. In Criminal Application No.1114
of 2016, the learned counsel for the second
respondent waives service. The learned APP waives
service for the first respondent. Both the
applications are forthwith taken up for final

apl241-1114

disposal.

2The applicant in Criminal Application No.241 of
2015 is the second respondent in Criminal
Application No.1114 of 2016. The second respondent
in Criminal Application No.241 of 2015 is the
applicant in the Criminal Application No.1114 of
2016.

¶20

3The prayer in the Criminal Application No.241
of 2015 is for quashing the FIR registered at the
instance of the second respondent therein for the
offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 407,
468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In Criminal
Application No.1114 of 2016 the prayer is for
quashing the FIR registered at the instance of the
second respondent therein for the offence punishable
under sections 420, 408, 465, 468, 471 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR has
been registered on the basis of the order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pune
under sub-section (3) of section 156 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973.

¶21

4The first informant in both the applications
have filed affidavits recording that there is an
amicable settlement between the parties and
therefore, they have agreed to give consent for
quashing the FIR. The parties are relying upon the
agreement dated 31st August 2016 recording a complete
settlement of all the subsisting disputes between
them.

¶22

apl241-1114

¶23

¶24

5Perusal of the allegations made in both the
FIRs show that essentially the dispute was a
commercial dispute over the business transactions.
Now, there is a complete settlement of the
commercial dispute as reflected from the agreement
dated 31st August 2016. The second respondents in
both the applications have paid donations of
Rs.50,000/- each to a charitable organization of
their choice. The documents showing payment of
donations are produced for perusal of the Court.

¶25

6The offences alleged cannot be said to be the
offences against the society at large. On the
contrary, the offences alleged are having
predominently civil flavour. Hence, this is a fit
case to exercise power under section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure,1973.

¶26

7 Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶27

(I)Rule issued in Criminal Application No.241
of 2015 is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:

¶28

“(a)This Hon'ble Court by invoking the
inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of
Cr.P.C be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned FIR dated 10.1.2015 registered with
SwargatePoliceStation,Punevide
C.R.No.10/2015 for the offences punishable
u/s.420, 406, 407, 468, 471 of Indian Penal
Code against the Applicant.”

¶29

apl241-1114

¶30

¶31

(II) Rule issued in Criminal Application No.1114 of 2016 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) which reads thus: “(B) The Rule may kindly be made absolute, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR No.65/2015 dated 19.3.2015 registered with Police Station Swargate Pune u/s.420, 408, 465, 468, 471, 34 of I.P.C lodged as per order dated 9.3.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune as per section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶32

(A.A.SAYED,J.)(A.S.OKA,J.)

Mr.Suryakumar Doraiswamy Shivasagaran v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Suryakumar Doraiswamy Shivasagaran v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Sukhmindar Singh Hundal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balan Rudra Pillai and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd Yusuf Miya Ahmad Memon @ Ghaswala and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashwani Pishorilal Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Kesharimal Phoolchand Vs the Maharashtra State and Ors.

Sameer Pakvasa S/O Akshay Pakvasa Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.