Allowed

Niranjan S/O. Raosaheb Nirmal and Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur - 440010 and Another

Bombay HC6 Nov 2023APL/553/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal application seeking quashal of an FIR for cheating and breach of trust. The dispute was private and cash amounts had been refunded. The injured party had no objection. The court quashed proceedings and ordered asset payment.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; FIR vide Crime No. 26/2023 quashed and set aside.

Niranjan S/O. Raosaheb Nirmal and Others Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:16255-DB

Judgment

924 apl 553.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 553/2023
1.Niranjan S/o. Raosaheb Nirmal,
Aged about 33 yrs., Occ. Business,
2.Raosaheb S/o Baburao Nirmal
Aged about 63 yrs., Occ. Retired
Govt. Employee,
3.Usha Raosaheb Nirmal,
Aged about 58 yrs., Occ. Household,
4.Pritam Niranjan Nirmal,
Aged about 28 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
All Applicants R/o. House No.3,
Siddheshwar Housing Chowk,
Sawedi.
... APPLICANTS
(accused)
VERSUS
1.State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur – 440010.
2.Smt. Varsha w/o. Vilas Aglawe,
aged about 52 yrs., Profession Lawyer,
R/o. Flat No. 502, Krishna Apartment,
Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur – 440022.
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------
Mr. Jitesh Dhuilani, Advocate for applicant..
Ms. Shamshi Haider, APP for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. N. V. Fulzele, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
----------------------------------

924 apl 553.23

Judgment

 CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND

¶11

M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

¶12

 DATE: 06.11.2023.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

2. Admit .

¶16

3.This is an application seeking to quash First Information
Report (‘FIR’) vide Crime No. 26/2023 registered with the Police
Station Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code on account of mutual settlement.

¶17

4.It is the prosecution case that time to time, informant’s
deceased husband has invested the different sums with the applicant
No.1 under the assurance to pay higher interest. Some amounts
were paid in cash whilst some by bank transfer. The informant’s
husband has paid total sum of Rs. 2.45 crores to applicant No.1 and
his concerns, of which rest applicants were stated to be partners.
Since despite assurance the money was not refunded, the informant

Judgment

924 apl 553.23

has lodged report about cheating and breach of trust. During
pedency, the matter has been amicably settled. Non-applicant No.1
has refunded entire sum of Rs. 2.25 crores. A copy of settlement
deed is produced on record. Informant lady has also filed reply
stating about the settlement, receipt of agreed sum and her no
objection to quash the proceeding.

¶22

5.The dispute was purely of private nature. The entire sum
has been refunded to the informant lady who has appeared before
She has been identified by her Advocate Mr. Fulzele. She has
admitted about the settlement and her no objection to quash the
proceeding. Having regard to the nature of private transaction, we
find no difficulty to quash the proceeding. However, it is apparent
that since the Police Machinery was utilised, the matter resulted into
settlement by refund of money. At this juncture, learned counsel for
applicants made a statement that they would deposit cost of Rs.
25,000/- within four weeks from today.

¶23

6. In view of above, application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aide (‘FIR’) vide Crime No. 26/2023 registered with the

Judgment

924 apl 553.23

Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code on account of mutual settlement.

¶28

7. Application stands disposed of in above terms.

¶29

8. The applicant shall deposit cost of Rs. 25,000/- with the Vidarbha Lady Lawyers’ Association, Nagpur within four weeks from today.

¶30

9. Stand over to 04.12.2023 for noting compliance.

¶31

(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶32

Gohane

Niranjan S/O. Raosaheb Nirmal and Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur - 440010 and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan S/O. Raosaheb Nirmal and Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur - 440010 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

Raju @ Bhikku S/O. Rambhau Parchake and Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Imamvada Ps, Nagpur and Another.

Umesh S/O Ganeshrao Kale Vs State of Mah. Thr. Ps Arvi Dist.Wardha

Chandrakant S/O. Gopalrao Kumbhare and Another. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, Lakadganj, Nagpur Dist. Nagpur.

Nitin S/O Dilip Rao Chandangir Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another

Mohammad Hasan S/O Mohammad Bashir and Another Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Juni Kamptee Dist. Nagpur and Another.

Kailash Devideen Japsare Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Police Station Officer, Police Station Akot, Dist. Akola and Anr.