Dismissed¶30

Vitthal Shantaram Kalate v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Mar 2025APPLN/667/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment of FIR refused at investigation stage under S.482 CrPC; cheating/criminal breach of trust FIR (IPC Ss.406, 420, 504, 506 r/w S.34), Crime No.35 of 2024, Akole Police Station, Ahmednagar; retired informant alleges Rs.89,40,000/- online transfers to accused No.1 Sudhir Ganpat Deshmukh for proposed Pune hotel business; applicant Vitthal Kalate named in FIR as prospective partner introduced by accused No.1; informant's affidavit-in-reply supports quashment but avers no compromise; Bombay HC Aurangabad DB (Kankanwadi & Joshi, JJ.), 24-03-2025; application rejected.

What did the court decide?

At this stage, no case is made out for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the application for quashing the FIR against the applicant therefore stands rejected. ¶29

Vitthal Shantaram Kalate Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR registered as Crime No.35 of 2024 with Akole Police Station (offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC) can be quashed against the applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of his alleged limited role (introduction as prospective partner) and respondent No.2's affidavit-in-reply supporting quashment.

¶25

Court's answer

At this stage, no case is made out for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the application for quashing the FIR against the applicant therefore stands rejected.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Court cannot say that the matter has been compromised between the present applicant and respondent No.2, as the affidavit-in-reply contains no such averment.

¶25

Key takeaways

The applicant was made an accused on the basis of the application in the FIR made by the informant himself; it is not a case of the police having wrongly added him.ratio¶28
What exactly was the transaction between original accused No.1 and the present applicant, and whether any further amount was transferred by accused No.1 into the applicant's account, would only be revealed in the ongoing investigation.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Rohit W. Joshi, JJ., 24 March 2025 - Criminal Application No.667 of 2024 - Quashing of FIR - Crime No.35 of 2024, Akole Police Station, District Ahmednagar, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC - Informant (respondent No.2), a recent retiree, alleged that Rs.89,40,000/- was transferred online to original accused No.1 (Sudhir Ganpat Deshmukh) for a proposed hotel business in Pune, in which accused No.1 had introduced the applicant as a prospective third partner - Applicant sought quashment under Section 482 CrPC, relying on respondent No.2's affidavit-in-reply admitting no amount was transferred in the applicant's name and raising no objection to quashment - Held: the affidavit-in-reply contained no averment of compromise, so quashment could not rest on settlement; the FIR itself named the applicant, hence he was not wrongly added by the police; the exact transaction between accused No.1 and the applicant and any onward transfer of funds were matters for the continuing investigation - No case made out at this stage for exercise of Section 482 jurisdiction - Application rejected.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:8709-DB

¶2

41-appln-667-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2024

¶5

Vitthal s/o Shantaram Kalate Age- 50 years, occu. Bussiness, R/o- New Dattanagar, Shanti Niwas, Near Datta Mandir, Wakad, Pune. .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akole Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶8

Vitthal s/o Maruti Deshmukh, Age-62 years, Occu. Agril, R/o. Amrutnagar, New Navalewadi, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. D. R. Markad, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for respondent No.1/State. Mr. D.A. Naik h/f Mr. S. D. Kotkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

¶11

ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 24 MARCH 2025

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

. Present application has been filed for quashing the FIR vide Crime

¶15

No.35 of 2024 registered with Akole Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 read with

¶16

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

[1]

¶18

41-appln-667-2024.odt

¶19

Heard learned Advocate Mr. D. R. Markad for the applicant, learned APP Mr. A. D. Wange for respondent No.1/State and learned Advocate Mr. D. A. Naik holding for learned Advocate Mr. S. D. Kotkar for respondent No.2.

¶20

Learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has taken us through the contents of the FIR and submits that even as per the contents of the FIR, his role is stated to be limited to the extent of introduction by the co-accused to the informant that he would be one of the partner. Though the informant has stated that in all amount of Rs.89,40,000/- has been transferred in the name of original accused No.1 Sudhir Ganpat Deshmukh, yet there is no statement that any amount has been transferred in the name of present applicant. He also relies on the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein respondent No.2/State admits that he has not transferred any amount in the name of applicant and respondent No.2 states that the applicant has been wrongly added by the police authorities in the crime and he has no objection for quashment of the FIR as against the applicant.

¶21

Learned APP informs that the matter is still under investigation.

¶22

Perusal of the FIR would give entire story, as to how representation was made and when original accused No.1/Sudhir Deshmuh, who happens to be from Amrutnagar New Navalewadi, Taluka

¶23

[2]

¶24

41-appln-667-2024.odt

¶25

Akole, known to the informant. When accused No.1 came to know about the fact that the informant, who had just retired, had received amount of gratuity and was intending to start some business to settle his two sons, who were depending on the agricultural income and were not employed, it is stated that accused No.1 had given the proposal to start the hotel business in Pune and then he induced respondent No.2 to invest in the said business. Accused No.1 had introduced the present applicant as would be partner in the hotel business and there would be three partners in the said business, to which the informant agreed. The informant then states as to how he has transferred the amount and basically, all the transfer appears to be online transactions and in all, amount of Rs.89,40,000/- has been transferred in the account of accused No.1. Now, the question is as to what is the role of the present applicant and whether in view of the affidavit-in-reply, the FIR can be quashed and set aside. We cannot say that the matter has been compromised between the present applicant and respondent No.2, as in the affidavit-in-reply, there is no such averment. Now, even after giving First Information Report wherein there is a specific statement that the present applicant was introduced by original accused No.1 and it was proposed that he would be one of the partners thereby making three persons as partners in the firm for the proposed hotel business i.e. informant, accused No.1 and present applicant, it is stated that accused No.1 had not either

¶26

[3]

¶27

41-appln-667-2024.odt

¶28

returned the amount, nor started the business. Even at the end, the informant states that present applicant had taken part in making representation and then cheating him. Now, still the informant want to blame the police stating that the police have wrongly added the applicant as party. It is not wrongly made, but it is on the basis of application in the FIR made by himself i.e. by the informant, he has been made as an accused.

¶29

What was exactly the transaction between original accused No.1 and the present applicant would only be revealed in the investigation. Whether there is further any transfer of amount by original accused No.1 in the account of present applicant would be part of investigation, which is still going on and, therefore, at this stage, case is not made out for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶30

Procedure. The application therefore stands rejected.

¶31

[ ROHIT W. JOSHI ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

scm

¶33

[4]

Vitthal Shantaram Kalate v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Shantaram Kalate v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajinath S/O Sopan Sole and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ganesh Balasaheb Kale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shahaji Krushnant Gaikwad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunera Mohammad Aasef @ Sunera Bano Mohammad Asif Sumar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Nandkumar Gorakshanath Khaire and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Liyakat Ali Mohd. Ali Sayyed and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another