Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2412 (BOM)

Dilip Gulabrao Dandekar v. State of Maharashtra

2013-11-27

A.B.CHAUDHARI, Z.A.HAQ

body2013
JUDGMENT Z.A. HAQ, J. :- Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Ahirkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no. 1 and Mr. Khamborkar, learned Advocate for non-applicant no.2. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicants have prayed for quashing of First Information Report bearing No. 138/2012 registered with Police Station, Kamptee on 31.8.2012 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the applicants is that the subject matter is purely of a civil nature. Non-applicant no.2 has filed Civil Suit against the applicants and, therefore, in view of this, the applicants cannot be prosecuted for the said offence. Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate for the applicants, has relied on the judgment reported in AIR (SC) 2006 SC 2035 : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2402 (S.C.)] (Ram Biraji Devi Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh) in support of his submissions. In the above referred reported case, the facts were totally different and there is no agreement in writing and the accused in that case had been denying the acceptance of money from the complainant. Mr. Tiwari, learned Advocate for the applicants has further relied on the judgment reported in 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 845 : [1998 ALL MR (Cri) 1382] (prabhakar Vithal Nalwad Vs. Prabhu Khemchand Karamchandani and others) in respect of his contention that if the matter is purely of civil nature, there can be no prosecution under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Again the facts of the above referred case are totally different. In the present case, the complaint of the non-applicant no.2 is that the applicants had offered a plot to non-applicant no.2 but subsequently the said map was got changed. There is no plot no.112 in the said map, which was offered to non-applicant no.2 and the said plot was not in existence also. 4. Mr. Ahirkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no.2 has submitted that the investigation is still going on. In the facts of present case, we find that invoking of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at this stage, will not be proper. 5. In view of this, the application is rejected. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. Application dismissed.