The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR lodged for Indian Penal Code offences related to unpaid wages and closure of a company, holding the case requires trial.
The writ petition is disposed of without any order looking for quashing of the FIR.
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.
1
31-wp-113-21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 113 OF 2021
Pradeep Gajanan Dangate & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents
Mr. Kunal Ambulkar for Petitioners. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 17 NOVEMBER 2021
P.C. :
. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of F.I.R. No. 398 of 2019 filed by the Respondent No.2 with Chinchwad Police station, under sections 420, 406, 504 and 507 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Digitally signed byVINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2021.11.20 16:23:29 +0530
1 of 3
Gokhale
231-wp-113-21
any payment. The Petitioners’ assured the Respondent No.2 that, in the month of September 2019 his balance payment would be made. When the Respondent No.2 went in the company premises, he found that, like the Respondent No.2, various workers had gathered there who were also in similar position as of the Respondent No.2 and were demanding their payment. The Respondent No.2 stated that, all of them tried to contact the C.E.O. of the company and office bearers i.e. the Petitioners, but they did not pay any attention, in fact, abused them during the telephonic conversation. When the Respondent No.2 and others went to the Chinchwad police station on 10 October 2019, the Petitioner No.2 was present there and he assured that he will make all the payment and no complaint should be filed. Since the Respondent No.2 did not believe the statement of the Petitioner No.2, the Petitioner No.2 executed a notarized document wherein it is stated that till the payment is made the company premises will not be closed and experience letter would be given. According to the Respondent No.2, on the next day of making this notarized document, the company was closed and the Petitioners were threatening him by employing antisocial elements.
2 of 3
331-wp-113-21
company, the company was closed. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are ingredients whatsoever of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not present in the F.I.R. to quash the same. The defence of the Petitioners that the Respondent No.2 and others were instrumental in closing the company is something that the Petitioners can demonstrate it at the time of trial. The scope of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing the F.I.R. is limited. It cannot be said that pleadings of the F.I.R. in totality discloses no offence. The case cannot be considered as rarest of rare case as stipulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra and Others1 .
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the pleadings of the FIR disclose an offence and constitute a rarest of rare case warranting quashing.
Whether the dispute arising from unpaid wages is appropriately settled at the trial stage rather than by quashing the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶20
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra and Others
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Pradeep Gajanan Dangate & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Nitin Jamdar
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court