Allowed

Ramkisan Raysing @ Harising Balravat and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC18 Dec 2023APPLN/345/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a 105 Criminal Application to quash an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court held the applicants, co-accused's relatives, were not privy to the transaction based on FIR evidence and accused inducing the victims to pursue civil remedies instead for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'C' and C-1 to quash the FIR and proceedings.

Ramkisan Raysing @ Harising Balravat and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AUG:26925-DB

¶2

cran345.23

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

105 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 345 OF 2023

¶6

Ramkisan Raysing @ Harising Balravat 2. Vinod s/o Ramkisan Balravat 3. Subhash s/o Ramkisan Balravat ...Applicants Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra 2. Vitthal Ganeshrao Deshmukh ...Respondents

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. P.G. Tambade APP for Respondent No.1: Ms. R.R. Tandale Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. R.D. Thorat

¶9

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 18^th DECEMBER, 2023.

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard.

¶12

This is an application for quashing of F.I.R. No. 243 of 2022 registered with Paradh police station, district Jalna for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 506 and 34 of I.P.C. and the consequential charge sheet No.36 of 2023 pending before the J.M.F.C. Jalna in S.C.C. No. 8313 of 2023.

¶13

What can be gathered from the F.I.R. and the related

¶14

papers is that Dinesh (co-accused) was a grocer. He would deal in

¶15

-2-

¶16

wholesale trading of food grains. The informant and other farmers used to sale him soyabean and other food grains. On 5.11.2021, the informant sold soyabean worth Rs.3,75,830/-. Dinesh assured to pay him that much amount within a couple of days. A receipt (Kacchi Pavti) was also issued in favour of informant Vitthal. He therefore, again went to the shop of co-accused Dinesh on 15.5.2022. Again Dinesh assured to pay the amount within 4/5 days. Same thing happened twice. Then it was realized that some other villagers viz. Rameshwar Deshmukh, Santosh Deshmukh, Sandeep Deshmukh had also sold him their food grains like maize, soyabean etc. When these persons visited the house of Dinesh, he was not present.

¶17

The applicants before us are the father and real brothers of Dinesh. They are alleged to have asked the informant and others not to visit their residence for making demand of amount due from Dinesh. The applicants also threatened them that if they visit their house again and trouble them, they would commit suicide.

¶18

Based on the said F.I.R. crime was registered and investigated as well. The F.I.R. itself indicate, it was co-accused Dinesh who has committed the alleged offence that he has purchased soyabean and did not pay the amount inspite of having given assurance of paying the same to the informant and other farmers. Our attention has been brought to the statement of applicant Ramkisan wherein he assured the informant and others that

¶19

cran345.23 -3-

¶20

the dues would be paid on sale of Dinesh’s share in the agricultural land. This statement cannot be relied upon because of being made to the investigating officer and it may at the most be in the nature of assurance to pay back the money which was due to the informant and other farmers. Based on this statement, they can file the civil suit for recovery of amount. We fail to understand as to how the sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. can be invoked against the applicants.

¶21

So far as offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. is concerned, the same is non cognizable. It is reiterated that the present applicants are noway privy to the transaction between the informant and other farmers on one hand and co-accused Dinesh on the other. As such, asking the applicants to stand trial based on such material would be an abuse of process of the court. We are therefore, inclined to allow the application. The application is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses “C” and C-1”.

¶22

We quantify an amount of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad to the learned advocate appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2.

¶23

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (R. G. AVACHAT, J.)

¶24

rlj/

Ramkisan Raysing @ Harising Balravat and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkisan Raysing @ Harising Balravat and Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babarao Mangilal Ade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anjali Kiran Mahadik and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Santosh Ramrao Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anil Mohanlal Vyas Vs Shri Manu Kumar Shrivastava

Bhika Laxman Solankar through Lrs Laxman Bhika Solankar through Lrs Shripad Laxman Solankar and Ors. Vs the Collector Aurangabad and Another

Sheku Laxman Solankar through Lrs Punjaram Sheku Solankar Vs the Collector Aurangabad and Another