Disposed

Rajesh S/O. Arun Gandhi v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso P S Malkapur City Dist. Buldhana and Another.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2024APL/171/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of an FIR implicating him in cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court noted a lack of prima facie material but allowed proceedings to continue, directing notice to the State and restraining charge-sheet filing without leave.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to the respondent; investigation to proceed; charge-sheet against the applicant requires leave of this Court.

Rajesh S/O. Arun Gandhi vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso P… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 2 911.apl171.2024

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 171 OF 2024

¶4

Rajesh S/o Arun Gandhi Vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra, Thru. Its PSO, PS Malkapur City, District – Buldhana and anr.

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Mr. A.M. Tirukh, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Anup Badar, APP for non-applicant/State.

¶8

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, AND SMT.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 09.02.2024

¶9

Heard.

¶10

This is an application seeking to quash First Information Report in Crime No.269/2023 registered with Malkapur Police Station, District – Buldhana, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

It is the informant’s case that co-accused Pankaj had business deals with him. On assurance to supply grain materials, the informant transferred him a huge sum of Rs.33,75,000/- by bank transfer and Rs.1,25,000/- in cash. However, goods were not

¶12

Prity

¶13

2 / 2 911.apl171.2024

¶14

supplied, hence, the report against main accused Pankaj Agrawal.

¶15

It reveals that though the applicant was not named in the FIR, however, during the investigation, it was revealed that the applicant had some business transactions with the main accused and they used to share the profit. On such information, applicant has been implicated in the crime.

¶16

Prima facie, we do not see any material against applicant to attract criminality.

¶17

Issue notice to the non-applicants, returnable on 26.03.2024 .

¶18

Mr. Badar, learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of non-applicant/State.

¶19

In the meantime, investigation shall go on, but the charge-sheet shall not be filed against the applicant without obtaining leave of this Court.

¶20

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

¶21

Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Prity Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/02/2024 10:51:08

Rajesh S/O. Arun Gandhi v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso P S Malkapur City Dist. Buldhana and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh S/O. Arun Gandhi v. the State of Mah. Thr. Pso P S Malkapur City Dist. Buldhana and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Rajendra Dhole vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Malkapur Gramin (Rural) Tq.Malkapur Dist.Buldhana and Another

Rakesh @ Vicky S/O Devidas Zade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Bhandara and 2 Others

Mohit Dewanand Gawande vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rajura Tah.Rajura Dist.Chandrapur and Another

Appasaheb S/O Ramesh Ghatbale vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another

Pradip S/O Khulas Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Telhara Tq.Telhara Dist.Akola

Kunal S/O Arun Ramtake and 2 Others vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Bhadrawati Dist.Chandrapur and Another