Disposed

Bharat Raghunath Baser and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC25 Oct 2021APPLN/615/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Aurangabad disposed of two criminal applications as infructuous. The Investigating Officer submitted a summary report and an informant admitted via affidavit that no caution money was collected due to earlier misunderstanding.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal applications disposed of as infructuous. Liberty granted to apply for quashing if trial court orders further investigation.

Bharat Raghunath Baser and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

44-CriAppln-141-2021

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

44 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 141 OF 2021

¶5

VIJAYA W/O. KAILASHCHANDRA KABRA AND ANOTHER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 615 OF 2021

¶9

BHARAT S/O RAGHUNATH BASER AND ANOTHER

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶12

Advocate for Applicants in Appln/141/2021 : Mr. Patil Jitendra V.
Advocate for Applicants in Appln/615/2021 : Mr. Akshay D. Kulkarni
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. J. Salgare
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. B. S. Dhawale

¶13

 CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND

¶14

SANDIPKUMAR. C. MORE, JJ.
 DATED : 25th OCTOBER, 2021

¶15

PER COURT:-

¶16

1. Heard.

¶17

2. Learned APP, on instructions in writing, submits that the

¶18

Investigating Officer has submitted “C” summary report to the

¶19

Magistrate in connection with the present crime bearing crime no.

¶20

44-CriAppln-141-2021

¶21

-2-

¶22

204 of 2019 (FIR No. 404 of 2019) registered with Zillapeth Police
Station, District Jalgaon for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 120-B, 403, 405, 408, 409 of IPC.

¶23

3.Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 in both the
applications submits that even respondent no.2-informant has also
filed his affidavit-in-reply and in para 5 and 6 of the same, has
accepted that no caution money and printing money is collected
from any student by any of the accused. No amount has been
deposited in the bank account of school managament towards the
said so-called collection. At the time of registration of the crime,
the respondent-informant was not aware of these facts and he got
knowledge about the same afterwards. Thus, respondent no.2-
informant has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

¶24

4.In view of the above, since the Investigating Officer has
already submitted the “C” summary report before the Court and
respondent no.2-informant has also submitted his affidavit-in-reply
accepting therein that due to his misunderstanding the complaint

¶25

came to be lodged, we dispose off both the crimnial applications as
infructuous.

¶26

44-CriAppln-141-2021

¶27

-3-

¶28

5.In the event, despite respondent no.2-informant submits his
no objection before the trial court while accepting or rejecting the
“C” summary report, if the trial court happens to give certion
directions about futher investigation in connection with the present
crime, we grant liberty to the applicants to file an application
seeking quashing of the FIR.

¶29

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)

¶30

vre

Bharat Raghunath Baser and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Raghunath Baser and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Namdeo Gyandeo Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandip Yashwant Popalwar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vijaya W/O. Kailashchandra Kabra and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sayed Tousif S/O. Kamar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another