Allowed

Sunil Surendra Kakkad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC20 Mar 2023APPLN/257/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's application to quash a criminal case arising from a commercial distributorship dispute, relying on the settlement between the parties. The court distinguished a prior Gujarat High Court order involving different personal laws before granting quashment subject to deposit of costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR and charge-sheet quashed and set aside; applicant directed to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000.

Sunil Surendra Kakkad Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 27-APPLN-257-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 257 OF 2023

¶4

Sunil Surendra Kakkad Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Another

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Shriraj R. Wakale – Advocate for the applicant Mr. S. D. Ghayal – APP for respondent no. 1/State Mr. Sandip A. Shendurkar – Advocate for respondent no. 2

¶9

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND

¶10

M. M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATED : 20.03.2023

¶11

PER COURT : -

¶12

. Heard both the sides.

¶13

The applicant, who is the sole accused in a criminal case registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by respondent no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act subsequently pending in the form of criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, is seeking quashment of the crime and the criminal case on the basis of a settlement.

¶14

The respondent no. 2, who is the original informant, has filed an affidavit vouching in terms of the settlement which includes

¶15

2 27-APPLN-257-2023.odt

¶16

payment of sum of money received by the respondent no. 2. Learned advocate for the respondent no. 2, on instructions, submits that the entire amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) mentioned therein is received by respondent no. 2.

¶17

Considering the fact that the genesis of the dispute is the contract entered into between the applicant – Company and the respondent no. 2 for distributorship of video calling equipment, according to us, no public policy would be offended.

¶18

True it is that another crime was registered against the applicant in the State of Gujarat, however, the Gujarat High Court has permitted that crime to be quashed on the basis of the settlement. Pertinently, the offence that was registered in the Gujarat State is apparently seen from the order dated 21.12.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 13731 of 2015, which is tendered across the bar by the learned advocate for the applicant, which demonstrates that the offence therein was not of the same kind, it was allowed to be compounded giving a liberty to the Investigating Officer to investigate the crime if some other offence under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as well as the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, were concerned. There is no similarity except that the request is for settlement.

¶19

3 27-APPLN-257-2023.odt

¶20

The application is allowed.

¶21

The FIR No. I-153 of 2014 registered with Jinsi Police Station, Auranabad dated 03.09.2014 for offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act and the charge-sheet are quashed and set aside against the applicant, subject to the applicant depositing costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) during the course of the day.

¶22

[ M. M. SATHAYE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

SGP

Sunil Surendra Kakkad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Surendra Kakkad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakharam Jahangya Mote Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Maroti Devidas Nagargoje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dnyandev Gangadhar Aragade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bhagwat Bhimrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Vishwanath Bawage and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anand Kashiram Sapkale Vs the State of Maharashtra