Bombay High Court
Devidutt S/O Surajaram Gujar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 4 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
apl922.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.922 OF 2015.
APPLICANT: Devidutt Surajaram Gujar,
Aged about 60 years, Occu: Business,
C.M.D. of P.R.C.Logistic Pvt. Ltd. R/o
ig 16-11-16/239/3 Salim Nagar, Near
Decan Tower, Malakper, Hydrabad, A.P.
50036, presently at Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
NON-APPLICANTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Inspector,
M.I.D.C.Hingna, Nagpur.
2. M/s Fackor steel through its
Administrative Officer Sudhir s/o
Prabhakar Pande, aged about 50 yrs.
Occu: Service, R/o Plot No.46, Hingna
M.I.D.C.Industrial Estate, Nagpur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.Naved Rizwy Adv. with Mr.H.G.Katekar, Adv. for the applicant.
Mr.T.A.Mirza, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr.G.K.Bhusari, Adv. for Non-applicant no.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2016 00:14:09 :::
apl922.15 2
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.923 OF 2015.
APPLICANTS: 1. Mr.Vinod Saraf,
Managing Director M/s Facor Steels Ltd.
Aged about 60 years, occu: Business,
Regd.Office: Plot No.46-A and B, MIDC
Industrial Estate, Hingna Road, Nagpur
-440028.
2. Mr.Murlidhar Saraf,
ig Vice Chairman and Director M/s Facor
Steels Ltd. Aged about 66 years, Occu:
Business, Regd.Office: Plot No.46 A & B
MIDC Industrial Estate, Hingna Road,
Nagpur - 440028.
: VERSUS :
NON-APPLICANTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Inspector,
M.I.D.C.Hingna, Nagpur.
2. M/s PRC Logistic Private Limited
through its Executive Director, Shri
K.V.Nagarajan s/o Vaidhayanath Swami,
aged about 50 years, Occu: Business, R/o
Jeses Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh, presently at Nagpur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.G.K.Bhusari, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr.T.A.Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr.G.K.Bhusari, Adv. for Non-applicant no.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2016 00:14:09 :::
apl922.15 3
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED: 4th AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. By way of present applications, the applicants have
approached this Court for quashing and setting the First
Information Report Nos. 175 of 2014 and 177 of 2014. Both
these cross-First information Reports have been filed by the parties
against each other. The FIR No.175 of 2014 is filed by
respondent no.2 against the applicant therein alleging therein that
the applicant, who was working as a Transporter, has
misappropriated certain goods belonging to non-applicant no.2 by
not reaching them at the destination.
3. In Criminal Application No.923 of 2015, the First
Information Report No.177 of 2014 is filed by the first informant
(non-applicant no.2) therein. It is alleged that the applicants have
received the substantial amount from non-applicant no.2 on the
premise that goods would be delivered to them but had not
delivered the goods and misappropriated the said amount.
4.
It is clear from the material placed on record that the
First Information Reports in question arise out of business dispute
between the parties. The parties have now settled the matter. All
the parties i.e. the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No.922
of 2015 as well as both the applicants in Criminal Application
(APL) No.923 of 2015 and the non-applicant no.2 in both the
applications are present in the Court. The learned counsel for the
parties have identified their respective clients.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and
ors. ..vs.. State of Punjab and ors. reported in (2014)6 SCC 446
has held that if the dispute between the parties is a private dispute
and no element of public law is involved, this Court can exercise
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
giving an end to the criminal litigation.
6. We find no element of public law is involved in the
present matter. Apart from that, in the investigation carried out
by the investigation agency, nothing has been found in both the
cases and 'C' Summary has been proposed to be filed by the
Investigation Agency. In that view of the matter, we are inclined
to allow the applications. The rule is made absolute in terms of
Prayer Clause (a) in both the applications.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
-CERTIFICATE-
I certify that this Order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed order.
Uploaded by : P.Z.Chute,
Pvt.Secretary.
Uploaded on: 08/08/2016.
