Allowed

Vilas S/O. Netaji Zodage v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Hudkeshwar Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur and Another.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2024APL/1470/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of FIR for cheating and breach of trust after the parties settled out of court; informant confirmed settlement. Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR subject to a cost deposit.

What did the court decide?

FIR Crime No.211/2022 quashed on account of settlement, subject to deposit of Rs.20,000 within two weeks.

Vilas S/O. Netaji Zodage Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:2886-DB

Judgment

934 apl 1470.23

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

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1470/2023

¶7

Vilas s/o Netaji Zodage,
Age 33 yrs., Occ. Private,
R/o. Ambedkar Wadi Poria,
Gadhchroli-442605

¶8

... APPLICANT

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. State of Maharashtra, through PSO Hudkeshwar, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.

¶11

2. Smt. Vaishali Kodhe, R/o. Plot No.95-B, Vyanktesh City-2, Besa, Nagpur.

¶12

...NON-APPLICANTS

¶13

Mr. I. Haque, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, APP for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. S.S. Firdous, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.

¶14

 CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND
 MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
 DATE: 06.03.2024.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :

¶16

Heard.

¶17

2. Admit .

¶18

3. This is an application seeking to quash First Information

Judgment

934 apl 1470.23

Report (‘FIR’) vide Crime No.211/2022 registered by Police Station
Hudkeshwar, Tah. and Dist. Nagpur for the offence punishable under
Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on
account of settlement.

¶23

4.It is informant’s case that she got acquainted with the
applicant in the month of November 2020. The applicant induced
her for making investment to double the amount. Believing on the
applicant, the informant went to Delhi and has invested sum of Rs.
4,00,000/- in the scheme to purchase a plot. Latter on, the applicant
and other co-accused time to time instigated her to invest more
money for getting lucrative benefits. It is informant’s case that she
has invested total sum of Rs. 28,03,858/-, but there is no return,
therefore the complaint of breach of trust and cheating. On the basis
of report, the Police registered crime and investigation is practically
complete.

¶24

5.In the meantime, the matter has been amicably settled in
between informant along with applicant and co-accused. The
informant lady has filed an affidavit stating that the matter is settled

Judgment

934 apl 1470.23

out of the Court and, she does not wish to prosecute either against
the applicant or other co-accused also. The informant has appeared
before us on 23.01.2024 and made a statement that the matter is
settled. She does not wish to prosecute the matter.

¶29

6. The applicant and co-accused assured of paying good
return and took sizable amount from the informant. It appears that
by the time, the matter has been settled. The informant stated that
the money has been returned and she does not wish to go on. The
offence cannot be termed as heinous or antisocial. The offence is
purely of a private nature having no social impact.

¶30

7.We have brought to the notice of the applicant that
because of registration of crime, the Police Machinery was rotated
and entire investigation is at the verge of completion. At this stage,
the learned counsel appearing for applicant expressed his willingness
to deposit sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards cost.

¶31

8.In view of above, application is allowed. We hereby
quash and set aside FIR vide Crime No.211/2022 registered by Police
Station Hudkeshwar, Tah. and Dist. Nagpur for the offence

Judgment

934 apl 1470.23

punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code on account of settlement subject to the
compliance of deposit of cost.

¶36

9.The applicant shall deposit sum of Rs. 20,000/- within
two weeks to the Vidharba Lady Lawyers Association, High Court
Bench at Nagpur.

¶37

10.The matter be placed for noting compliance on
21.03.2024.

¶38

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

¶39

Gohane

Vilas S/O. Netaji Zodage v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Hudkeshwar Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas S/O. Netaji Zodage v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Hudkeshwar Tahsil 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

Vinod S/O. Vitthal Ghewandhe vs Sau. Sunita W/O. Vinod Ghewande

Milind Sadashiv Hinge Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Sonegaon, Nagpur.

Dilip Sampat Bhalerao Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Deulgaon Raja Tq. Deulgaon Raja Dist.Buldhana and Another

Hemant Pravinchandra Khatri Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso of Ps City Kotwali, Taluka and Dist. Amravati and Another.

Jayant Pravinchandra Khatri Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps City Kotwali Tq. and Dist.Amravati and Another

Kiran W/O Haresh Mistry Vs the Dharampeth Mahila Multi State Co-Ope. Soc. Ltd., Nagpur Thr. Rajesh Nilkanthrao Sathwane and 1