Allowed

Dharmaraj Baburao Shevale and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC19 Apr 2023WP/104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Writ Petition challenged an order directing issuance of process for offences under Sections 420, 466, 467 and 34 of IPC. The High Court found continuing the proceedings an abuse of process as the allegations were essentially civil disputes.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Writ Petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B' and disposed of.

Dharmaraj Baburao Shevale and Another Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

51.Cri.WP-104-2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2023

¶6

DHARMARAJ BABURAO SHEVALE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Hon Ashwin Vinayak
APP for Respondent No.1/State : Mr. P. M. Kulkarni

¶9

Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. N. I. Desmukh i/by Mr. Harshal Prakash

¶10

Randhir

¶11

 CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
 DATE : 19th APRIL 2023.

¶12

Per Court :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

1. A challenge is to the order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the

¶15

learned Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadgaon, directing to
issue process against the accused/present petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioners got the knowledge of this order on
17.05.2022 as is clear from the Roznama that on 04.04.2022, the
summons were issued. A request was made by the complainant to issue

¶16

2 51.Cri.WP-104-2023.doc

¶17

summons by registered post. It is only thereafter the accused came to
know about that on receiving the summons and therefore thereafter
they approached this Court.

¶18

.By going through the complaint, it is seen that a complaint was
filed stating that the amount of commission of Rs.80,000/- is not paid
to the complainant. It is alleged that the petitioners/accused persons,
are Managing Director and Chairman of Rameshwar Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Limited. It is submitted that though the complainant was
entitled to receive this amount towards commission, the same is not
paid to him.

¶19

2.The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that reading the
complaint as it is, no criminal offence is made out under Section 420,
466, 467 read with Section 34 of IPC. The complaint is only about non-
receipt of alleged amount of commission from the Kharkhana towards
supply of vehicle for transporting sugarcane. At the most it can be said
to be dispute of a civil nature. The learned Court below has not
considered this aspect and has issued the summons. The respondent is
only a labour contractor and sugarcane transporter. Certainly non-

¶20

¶21

51.Cri.WP-104-2023.doc

¶22

payment by itself cannot amount to be a criminal offence under Section
420, 466, 467 of IPC. No allegation is found to make out offence
under Sections 420, 466, 467 read with Section 34 of IPC. The further
allegation in the complaint that there is violation of the resolution of
the Karkhana itself by which, it was resolved to give the contractors
18% commission.

¶23

3.The learned APP and also learned Advocate for respondent no.2
opposes the petition stating that the question requires trial. The order
passed by the trial Court shows that he has applied the mind and
procedure under Section 202 was followed. Looking to the order, it
appears that the Court has considered that for the year 2012-2013, the
labour contractors and transporter completing 25% trips in a day, were
entitled to get 15.5% commission for the work they have done. Taking
the reasoning as it is, it is seen that there is nothing to indicate in the
order that any offence was made out as alleged.

¶24

4.This Court finds that continuation of the proceeding only clearly
an abuse of process of law. Therefore the petition deserves to be
allowed. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.

¶25

¶26

51.Cri.WP-104-2023.doc

¶27

5. With this, the Criminal Writ Petition is disposed off.

¶28

 [ KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

¶29

Najee b .

Dharmaraj Baburao Shevale and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmaraj Baburao Shevale and Another 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

Basawraj Umakant Honmale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Snehal W/O. Balu Dhakane @ Snehal Ramdas Avhad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Balu Ramkisan Dhakane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rahul Bhikulal Kasat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Taufiq @ Kalya Nizam Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Satwaji Joshi (Shastri) Vs the State of Maharashtra