Criminal Application to quash an FIR registered for cheating under IPC Section 420. The court held that disputed questions of fact prevent quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the application.
FIR bearing C.R. No. 187 of 2021 not 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.
904-Apl-888-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 888 OF 2021
Rajesh Mahendra Agarwal… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr.… Respondents
Mr. Vikram Sutaria, for the Applicant.
Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Omkar Nevgi, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Suraj Y. Rajguru, API, Lonikand Police Station, present.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2023.
P. C. :
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2 By this Application, the applicant seeks quashing of the FIR,bearing C.R. No. 187 of 2021 registered with the Lonikand Police
Station, Pune, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code.
3 Both, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 as well asREKHA PRAKASH PATIL
Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2023.02.22 18:53:13 +0530
learned Counsel for the applicant, have filed their respectiveRekha Patil 1/2
904-Apl-888-2021.odt
Affidavit-in-Reply, Rejoinder Affidavit and Additional Affidavit.
4We have gone through the affidavits filed by the respective
parties. According to the complainant, he had purchased a plot i.e.
11000 sq. ft. land (plot No.19) from the applicant’s father and
thereafter, the applicant again resold part of the very same land i.e.
of 4000 sq. ft., to another purchaser, and hence, the F.I.R. Having
heard learned Counsel for the parties, the case in hand raises several
disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
5 Considering the aforesaid, we were not inclined to quash theaforesaid F.I.R. Application is accordingly dismissed.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
Rekha Patil 2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR involving disputed questions of fact regarding land resale can be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh Mahendra Agarwal
The State of Maharashtra
Anr.
Revati Mohite Dere
Prithviraj K. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court