This court rejected an application seeking quashment of an FIR registered for theft of a vehicle. The court found no evidence of delivery of possession and held that the allegations clearly made out a case of theft.
The criminal application seeking quashment of the FIR was rejected.
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 Cr. Appln. 3267 / 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
942 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3267 OF 2022
GANESH NATHURAM JAT VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Deshmukh Sachin S. APP for the respondent – State : Mr. B.V. Virdhe
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 14 OCTOBER 2022
PC :
The applicant is seeking quashment of the FIR no. 266 of 2022 registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, District – Nanded for the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the respondent no. 2.
2 Cr. Appln. 3267 / 2022
He would submit that on 22-08-2022 itself, the applicant had informed the Superintendent of Police, Beed about the sinister design of the respondent no. 2 to dupe him. It is thereafter that the FIR has been lodged. There is no element of criminality. The ingredients of the offence of theft cannot be made out from the FIR. It would be a sheer abuse of the process of law if the applicant is made to face the investigation and possible prosecution.
Learned advocate also submits that the vehicle was purchased by the respondent no. 2 by obtaining a loan and pursuant to the agreement, it was the applicant who had continued to pay the installments towards repayment. He would submit that the case is clearly covered by the guidelines in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others; 1992 AIR SC 604 .
8. The Application is rejected.
decision of the present matter.
[ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal application under CrPC Section 482 to quash an FIR alleged to be based on a civil dispute regarding a vehicle sale should be allowed.
Whether the ingredients of the offence of theft can be made out from the allegations in the FIR.
Whether assumption of possession lies with the registered owner or the buyer in the absence of evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶16
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others; 1992 AIR SC 604 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
GANESH NATHURAM JAT
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THE STATE
MANGESH S. PATIL
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
