Allowed

Ku. Priti D/O Diliprao Thakre v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Hudkeshwar Nagpur, Tq. and Dist. Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC20 Sept 2024APL/1347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed this criminal application to quash an FIR. The applicant, an ex-employee, was alleged to have been used as a conduit for transferring money. Due to the main accused's absconding and a mutual settlement, the Court quashed proceedings against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

The FIR vide crime No. 993/2023 for offences under Sections 420, 408 read with Section 34 IPC was quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicant.

Ku. Priti D/O Diliprao Thakre Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:10729-DB

Judgment

909 apl 1347.24

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

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1347/2024

¶7

Ku. Priti d/o. Diliprao Thakre, aged about 24 yrs., Occ. Student, R/o. 23-Rajapeth, Hudkeshwar Road, Hudkeshwar Bk. Nagpur, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.

¶8

... APPLICANT

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Hudkeshwar Nagpur, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.

¶11

Shri Anupkumar s/o Kashmirilal Guglani, aged about 34 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.25/A, Flat No.402, Sai Prerna Krida Chauk, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur – 440009.

¶12

… NON-APPLICANTS

¶13

Mr. R. Kadu, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A. Madiwale, APP for non-applicant No.1. Mr. K. Dhoble, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.

¶14

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND

¶15

MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 20.09.2024.

Judgment

909 apl 1347.24

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Admit .

¶22

This is an application seeking to quash First Information Report (“FIR”) vide crime No. 993/2023 registered with Police Station Hudkeshwar, Tal. and Dist. Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 408 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of mutual settlement.

¶23

It is informant’s case that main accused Pravin Ingle was employee in his Sari Shop and looking after the business account. Main accused Pravin Ingle has fraudulently issued a cheque in the name of applicant Priti drawn on the very business account and transferred Rs. 4,10,000/- in applicant’s account. The informant learnt the things from bank employees, on which the applicant has returned Rs. 1,00,000/-, however the remaining amount appears to have been withdrawn by the main accused Pravin Ingle. Since the informant was cheated, report has been lodged.

Judgment

909 apl 1347.24

It reveals that the entire allegation of cheating are against Pravin Ingle. He has used applicant as a mean to transfer the money for his own purpose. It is isolated transaction of transfer of money in the account of applicant. The informant has settled the dispute out of the Court and filed reply stating no objection to quash the proceeding. The informant is present before us who has been identified by his counsel Mr. Dhoble, and he has stated that the applicant was his ex-employee who has been used by Pravin Ingle to siphon money. Considering the said aspect, he has settled the dispute. Moreover, it is submitted that the applicant has paid him additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards settlement. In the circumstances, the informant stated that he does not wish to prosecute against the applicant.

¶28

It is a case of cheating, wherein the allegation are against main accused Pravin Ingle who is stated to be absconding. Considering limited role of the applicant and settlement arrived between the parties, we deem it appropriate to exercise our inherent powers.

¶29

In view of above, application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside FIR vide crime No. 993/2023 registered with Police Station Hudkeshwar, Tal. and Dist. Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 408 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to the

¶30

Judgment 909 apl 1347.24

¶31

¶32

extent of present applicant on account of mutual settlement.

¶33

Application stands disposed of in above terms.

¶34

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶35

Gohane

Ku. Priti D/O Diliprao Thakre v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Hudkeshwar Nagpur, Tq. and Dist. Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Priti D/O Diliprao Thakre v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Hudkeshwar Nagpur, Tq. and Dist. Nagpur 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

Rajesh Ramesh Bawangade Vs the Chairman, Railway Board, Railbhawan, New Delhi and Others

Manish Venudhar Buradkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Beltarodi Nagpur and Another

Saroj Narendra Deshpande (Dani) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P. S. O. Kolhapuri Gate, Tq. and Dist. Amravati and 1

Gajanan Kashinath Kamble vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Home Dep.(Special) Mumbai and Another

Shahezad Khan Shammi Khan vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Home Dep.(Spl) Mantralaya Mumbai and Anothr

Ajay Chandraprakash Agrawal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso., P.S Kotwali, Amravati, Dist.Amravati and Another