Allowed

Bablu S/O Dhanraj Bagde v. the State of Maharashtra Pso Ps Sadar Dist.Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC20 Sept 2024APL/591/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur quashed the criminal prosecution against a former police constable accused of cheating under the IPC. The application was allowed after verifying that all invested amounts were returned to the 64 victims, who expressed no objection.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside criminal prosecution (M.P.I.D. Case No.1/2017); Directed applicant to deposit Rs.1,00,000 with Police Welfare Fund.

Bablu S/O Dhanraj Bagde Vs the State of Maharashtra Pso Ps… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 apl591.2024

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.591/2024

¶4

(Shri Bablu S/o Dhanraj Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and another)

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

¶9

Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. P. Lakhani, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.

¶10

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 20.9.2024.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

This is an application seeking to quash criminal prosecution namely M.P.I.D. Case No.1/2017 arising out of Crime No.0047/2017 registered by non-applicant No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 409 of Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The applicant was serving as a Police Constable on the establishment of Police Headquarters, Nagpur. He had floated a scheme amongst his co-employees that on deposit of certain sum he would return the money with heavy interest at the rate of 25% per annum. Relying on such assurances total 64 employees serving in police department have deposited different sums with the applicant. Since the money was not returned despite assurances one of the aggrieved investor has lodged the report. The police have carried investigation and on completion filed chargesheet.

¶14

During investigation it was revealed that there are total 64 investors and they have deposited total amount of Rs.56,86,000/- with the applicant. In the meantime, the matter was settled and applicant has returned the invested

¶15

2 apl591.2024

¶16

amount to all the depositors. The complainant has appeared and filed affidavit stating that her amount is returned and she has no objection to quash the proceeding. Likewise all 64 investors have also filed affidavits stating that their amounts have been returned and they have no grievance against the applicant.

¶17

We have called report from the Registrar (J.) of this Court who has verified the contents of all affidavit from the investors and found to be correct. Learned A.P.P. has also assured that all 64 investors have received money and gave no objection.

¶18

Investigating Officer Mr. Abhijeet Dwarkadas Chikhalikar is also present who has made a statement that applicant has returned money of all the investors which is revealed during the course of investigation.

¶19

It reveals that the applicant has initially paid some returns, however, later on he has avoided to pay. Entire money which the applicant had received has been returned. The offence cannot be termed as heinous or antisocial. Considering the peculiar facts that the amount of all the investors has been repaid, we deem it appropriate to exercise our inherent powers.

¶20

The applicant’s learned Advocate would submit that the applicant would deposit sum of Rs.1,00,000/towards rotating the police machinery.

¶21

In view of above, application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside criminal prosecution namely M.P.I.D. Case No.1/2017 arising out of Crime No.0047/2017 registered by non-applicant No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 409 of Indian Penal Code.

¶22

3 apl591.2024

¶23

Applicant shall deposit sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with Police Welfare Fund, Nagpur on or before 15.10.2024. 11. Stand over to 16.10.2024 for compliance. 12. We make it clear that if any complaint is received from some other investor, the police are free to take necessary action as permissible in law.

¶24

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

¶25

Tambaskar.

Bablu S/O Dhanraj Bagde v. the State of Maharashtra Pso Ps Sadar Dist.Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu S/O Dhanraj Bagde v. the State of Maharashtra Pso Ps Sadar 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

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