Bhausaheb Pandurang Petkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

933.Crl.Appln.1660.23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1660 OF 2023 Mr. Bhausaheb Pandurang Petkar ... APPLICANT

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra 2.

Dhiraj s/o Prataprao Patil ...

RESPONDENTS ...

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Kakade Amol Narhari APP for Respondents: Mrs. M.A. Deshpande ...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

DATE : 28.04.2023 PER COURT :

The applicant is seeking quashment of Crime No.668/2020 registered with Rahata Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Section 419, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

We have heard the learned advocate for the applicant, learned APP and perused the papers.

3.

The sum and substance of the allegations as can be discerned from the FIR are to the effect that the prime accused which is a couple had introduced the informant to the present applicant who was then in the permanent employment of an education institute run by Rayat Shikshan Sanstha. It is alleged that all the accused had lured the informant by promising to secure employment against payment of money. The informant 1/2

933.Crl.Appln.1660.23.odt was introduced to the applicant in the latter's chamber where he was serving. The FIR further reads about the conversation, wherein, it has been expressly mentioned that the applicant had given the instructions to be followed thereafter by the informant for securing the employment and even expressly directed to directly pay the money to the other accused. It is alleged that accordingly the informant paid several sums to the main accused from time to time and after realizing that he has been induced to part with money under the false promise of securing the employment and has been cheated he lodged the FIR.

4.

In exercise of the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are not supposed to enter into and undertake a scrutiny of the material. Going by the allegations in the FIR necessary ingredients for constituting the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can easily be made out. Merely because there is delay in lodging the FIR, in our considered view the crime cannot be quashed. If a specific role is attributable to the applicant revealing his complicity in the crime in association with the main accused, the crime cannot be quashed.

5.

The application is dismissed.

(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb 2/2