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.
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
Post a Comment