In a criminal application, the applicant sought to quash an FIR alleging misappropriation of set-top boxes valued at Rs 37.5 lakh. The court held that ownership and value are disputed facts requiring investigation, and the case does not meet the highest threshold for quashing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
skn 1 13-APL-473.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2021
Paresh Gordhandas Thakkar. … Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another. … Respondents.
Mr.Sudeep Pasbola i/b. Vaibhav Jagtap for the Applicant. Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent- State.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY KASHINATH KASHINATH NANOSKAR NANOSKAR Date: 2021.10.12 12:38:44 +0530
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 6 October 2021.
P.C. :
By this application, the Applicant is seeking to quash FIR No.80/2020 registered at Pant Nagar Police Station at the instance of Respondent No.2.
skn 2 13-APL-473.2021.doc
from the subscribers and he was keeping the said amount with himself. According to Respondent No.2, it was obligatory on the Applicant to take the connection from Respondent No.2 alone. The dispute that arose regarding collection of charges is now in arbitration. It was then stated that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, on 3 March 2017, issued a notification wherein it was stated that instead of taking fixed amount from the subscribers, the rates of TV channels were to be prescribed. According to Respondent No.2, the Applicant was informed to collect the charges from the subscribers as per new rules, however, the Applicant collected the charges as per plan and kept the amount with himself. Because of this situation, the connections given to the subscribers had to be disconnected. It was further stated that the Applicant formed another company and took licences, and between year 201316, the Applicant purchased various set-top boxes and supplied the same. The set-top boxes had a particular value and belonged to Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 alleged that the Applicant himself or his employees, by going to the houses of the subscribers, misrepresented the subscribers that they will be getting a different network from a different company which is going to provide better facilities and took away the set-top boxes and placed his own. Accordingly, the set-top boxes 2,610 in number valued around Rs.37.5 lakh were taken away by the Applicant. Therefore, FIR was lodged.
skn 3 13-APL-473.2021.doc
skn 4 13-APL-473.2021.doc
investigation is necessary and close the case forever. Such a course of action would be against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra1 . This is not a rarest of rare case as indicated by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
1 AIR 2021 SC 1918
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR at this stage without further investigation into ownership and value of disputed set-top boxes.
If the set-top boxes belonged to the subscribers and had no value, whether investigation is still necessary.
Whether the case meets the 'rarest of rare' criteria required for quashing an FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶19
M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra¹
Paresh Gordhandas Thakkar
The State of Maharashtra
Another
Nitin Jamdar
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
