Skip to main content

Complainant Can’t Pick & Choose Accused As Per Convenience

The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, even though the complainant and the respondents claimed to have “settled matters amicably”.

A bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice PD Naik was hearing a writ petition filed by one Anita Dias seeking quashing of FIR filed against her by Manoj Yeole, a resident of Baner, Pune.

Anita’s lawyer V. Kamble had placed reliance on an affidavit wherein Yeole had stated that he had no objection if his FIR dated August 2, 2012, against Anita was quashed.

In the said affidavit, Yeole says all the misunderstandings had been cleared and that he wished to withdraw the criminal complaint filed by him.

When asked about the contents of the affidavit, complainant Yeole was described as being ‘incoherent’ and his answers were not consistent with his statement in the affidavit against some of the accused.

He, instead, stated that nothing came of the prosecution launched by him and, thus, wished to withdraw the complaint.

The court reminded both parties that it was unfettered by the perception of the complainant and the accused while making a decision on the application for quashing.

In his complaint, Yeole states that one Vilas Birajdar persuaded him to invest large sums of money in a Company called M/s Carl Logistics, based out of Goa. Its two main partners were Levino Dias and Anita Dias (petitioner).

According to the original complaint, Birajdar and the two partners (Levino and Anita) in collusion lured Yeole to part with huge sums of money on assurance of fruitful gains. There were serious allegations of forgery as well.

The bench observed:“It is in these circumstance that we are unable to accept the petitioners’ argument that proceedings are abuse of process of the Court, particularly after settlement.

We do not think that the grounds are enough to exercise our inherent jurisdiction.

The complainant cannot pick and choose an accused as per his  convenience. The larger interest of the society is adversely affected by such prima facie dubious and doubtful dealings.”

Thus, the writ petition seeking quashing was dismissed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)



5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…

DISTINCTION BETWEEN NECESSARY & PROPER PARTY

Who is Necessary to Proper Party

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111, relied on. Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All E.R. 273 and Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All E.R. 611, referred to.

National Textile Workers’ Union, etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 922,

distinguished.

Meaning of Necessary or Proper Party

Whether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in suit.

Whether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party.

The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : 1992 (2) SCR 1 : JT 1992 (2) SC 136 : 1992 (1) Scale 530 : 1992 (1) CCC 594 : 1992 (1) RCR 644 : 1992 (2) UJ 181 held that a party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him.

A bench comprisi…