The High Court quashed FIR No. 48 of 2020 registered for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court observed that since the dispute was settled amicably during investigation, continuation of proceedings was futile, relying on B.S. Joshi.
FIR No. 48 of 2020 registered with Ashta Police Station, Sangli, is quashed.
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.
Digitally signed by RUSHIKESH RUSHIKESH V PATIL V PATIL Date: 2022.02.25 16:30:10 +0530
1 of 3
32 WP.430.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2022
Vishnu Ramchandra Bhagwat & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
...Respondents
********
Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr. Amit B. Thorat for Respondent No. 2. Ms. Aruna S. Pai, PP for Respondent No. 1-State.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.
DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2022.
P.C. :
. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 and the learned P.P. for the Respondent-State.
R.V.Patil
2 of 3
32 WP.430.2022.doc
On 19th December, 2018 Respondent No.2 along with his friends attended a meeting at Hotel Orchid , Pune with Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of investment in “Sankalp Siddhi” Company, Nasik. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 informed Respondent No. 2 about various investment schemes of the said company and induced him to invest for higher returns. Respondent No. 2 from time to time invested amount of Rs.16,08,000/- (Rs. Sixteen Lakhs and Eight Thousand only) as per the directions of Petitioners. The company run by Petitioner No. 1 returned an amount of Rs.4,07,700/- (Rs. Four Lakhs, Seven Thousand and Seven Hundred only) to Respondent No. 2, but they did not return an amount of Rs.12,00,230/- (Rs. Twelve Lakhs, Two Hundred Thirty only) to Respondent No. 2 as promised by the Petitioners. In spite of request of persuasion, Petitioner No. 1 failed to repay the amount of Rs.12,00,230/- to Respondent No. 2. Hence, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR against the Petitioners.
R.V.Patil
3 of 3
32 WP.430.2022.doc
reply on his own will and wish and without any coercion.
(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
R.V.Patil
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 48 of 2020 punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 IPC be quashed in view of amicable settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Joshi vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶29
B.S.Joshi V/s. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishnu Ramchandra Bhagwat & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra
PRASANNA B. VARALE
SURENDRA P. TAVADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
