Allowed

Sanjay S/O Danchand Ghodawat and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC30 Oct 2018WP/980/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, allowed a writ petition for the quashing of an FIR under sections 420, 406, and 34 IPC. The court held that the dispute was commercial in nature and was successfully settled through mediation between the original accused and the first informant.

What did the court decide?

The criminal writ petition was allowed; the FIR was quashed; and the rule was made absolute.

Sanjay S/O Danchand Ghodawat and Others Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(Judgment) (1) Cri. W.P. No. 0980 of 2016

¶2

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

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No. 0980 of 2016

¶4

District : Jalna

¶5

`1. Sanjay s/o. Danchand Ghodawat,`
`Age : 51 years,`
`Occupation : Business,`
`R/o. Yeshwant Housing Society,`
`Jaisingpur, Taluka Shirol,`
`District Kolhapur.`
`2. Mohin Amir Pinjari,`
`Age : 43 years,`
`Occupation : Business &` `Director,`
`R/o. At Post Chipari,`	`.. Petitioners`
`Taluka Shirol,`	`(Original`
`District Kolhapur.`	`accused)`
`3. Vilas Kisan Gosavi,`
`Age : 33 years,`
`Occupation : Service as`
`Manager in Ghodawat Foods`
`International Private Limited,`
`At Post Chipri,`
`Taluka Shirol,`
`District Kolhapur.`
`versus`
`1. The State of Maharashtra,`
`Through its Principal`
`Secretary,`
`Home Department,`
`Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.`
`2. The Police Inspector,`
`Police Station,`
`Chandanvira,`
`At Jalna,`
`Taluka & Dist. Jalna.`

¶6

.... Contd.

¶7

(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 0980 of 2016

¶8

3.Kishor s/o. Jagannath Shingare,
Sanjay Cottonseed Industries,
A Company Private Limited,.. Respondents.
Paniwest, Kadarabad at Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.

¶9

...........

¶10

Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondents no.01 and 02.

¶12

Mr. Govind Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent no.03.

¶13

...........

¶14

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
 SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

¶15

 DATE : 30TH OCTOBER 2018

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Court] :

¶17

01.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, heard finally.

¶18

02.By the present petition, the petitioners -
original accused are praying for quashment of the
first information report bearing Crime No. 205/2016,
registered with Chandanzira Police Station, District
Jalna, dated 04.07.2016, under Sections 420, 406, read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The report
was given by respondent no.03.

¶19

03.During arguments, learned Advocate for the
petitioners and the learned Advocate for respondent

¶20

(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 0980 of 2016

¶21

no.03 - first informant submitted that the parties
have settled the dispute. There is record showing
that the matter was referred for mediation and
mediation became successful. Today, terms of
settlement are filed on record.

¶22

04.This Court has carefully gone through the
contents of the FIR. There was contract between the
first informant and the accused for supply of edible
oil after verification and it is the allegation that
in respect of two tankers, price was not paid and it
was contended by the accused, that the tankers were
not reached to the destination.

¶23

05.In view of the nature of allegations and
nature of dispute, this Court holds that the relief
prayed in the petition deserves to be granted in the
light of settlement arrived between the petitioners -
original accused and respondent no.03 - first
informant.

¶24

06.Hence, the following order :-

¶25

(a) The criminal writ petition is allowed.

¶26

(b) Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause "B". (c) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶27

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( T.V. Nalawade ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

...........

¶29

puranik / CRIWP980.16

Sanjay S/O Danchand Ghodawat and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay S/O Danchand Ghodawat and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Laximanrao Donglikar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr. Naresh Vasantrao Gavande Vs Meerabai Datta Patil and Anr.

Sunil S/O Kashinath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

Nilkanth Apparao Ghaytadak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sitaram Budhaji Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Dr. Govindsingh Fulchand Rajput and Anr. Vs Laxminarayan Namdeo Zalwar and Anr.