Narendra Rameshchandra Laddha vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1855 Bom

 Judgment                                    1                          apl454.18+1.odt




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 454 OF 2018
                                     AND
                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 872 OF 2018


 CRI.APPLN.NO.454/2018

 Narendra Rameshchandra Laddha,
 Aged about 58 years, Occupation :Trader,
 Proprietor Shri Traders, Chikhli,
 R/o. Khandala Road, Near Govt. Dairy,
 Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana.

                                                                    .... APPLICANT.

                                   // VERSUS //


 1.    The State of Maharashtra,
       through P.S. Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli,
       Dist. Buldhana.

 2.    Pandharinath Shriram Shingne,
       aged : Adult, Occupation : District
       Marketing Officer, R/o. Office of
       District Marketing Officer,
       Tq. And Dist. Buldhana.
                                                            .... NON-APPLICANTS.

 With

 CRI.APPLN.NO.872/2018

 Shobhadevi Dindayal Wadhwani,
 aged about 60 years, Occupation : Business,
 R/o. Old Mehkar Road, Near Circuit House,
 Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana.

                                                                    .... APPLICANT.

                                   // VERSUS //



::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 03:46:45 :::
  Judgment                                    2                          apl454.18+1.odt




 1.    The State of Maharashtra,
       through P.S. Chikhli, Tq. Chikhli,
       Dist. Buldhana.

 2.    Pandharinath Shriram Shingne,
       aged : Adult, Occupation : District
       Marketing Officer, R/o. Office of
       District Marketing Officer,
       Tq. And Dist. Buldhana.
                                                            .... NON-APPLICANTS.
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri J.B.Kasat, Advocate for Applicants.
 Shri N.S.Rao, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1/State.
 Ms Shirin Meghe, Adv. h/f. Shri P.D.Meghe, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
 ___________________________________________________________________

                         CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 28, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Amit Borkar, J.)

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By these applications under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure the applicants have challenged registration of First

Information Report No.97 of 2018, dated 10 th February 2018, registered with

non-applicant No.1 Police Station for the offence punishable under Section

420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Judgment 3 apl454.18+1.odt

4. The First Information Report came to be registered against the

applicants in both these applications with the accusations that the applicants

had purchased black lentil at lower price from farmers and instead of selling

it to Agricultural Produce Market Committee, the applicants sold it to

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED) at

higher rates.

5. The applicants have therefore, challenged registration of the

First Information Report by way of filing these applications. This Court on 8 th

June 2018 and on 24th September 2018 issued notices to the non-applicants.

6. In pursuance of notice the non-applicant No.1 has filed reply. It

is stated in the reply that the matter was investigated by recording

statements of farmers. The statement of District Deputy Registrar was also

recorded. It is stated that the First Information Report came to be registered

on the basis of the complaint filed by one Ravikant on 9 th January 2018 and

on the basis of the inquiry it is revealed that the applicants being agents of

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee purchased the lentil from farmers

at lower price i.e. Rs.2,300/- per quintal and instead of selling it to

Agricultural Produce Market Committee the applicants have sold out the said

lentil to NAFED @ Rs.5,500/- per quintal.

Judgment 4 apl454.18+1.odt

7. During the course of hearing the learned A.P.P. invited our

attention to the statements of witnesses. We have carefully considered the

accusations of the First Information Report along with the statement of

witnesses, namely farmers from whom the lentil in question was purchased

by the applicants.

8. On reading of the statements of farmers it appears that the

main accusation against the applicants was to the effect that in spite of

selling lentil to the applicants, the farmers have not received their price. All

the statements which are recorded by the Investigating Officer are to the

similar effect that the farmers have not received their price in spite the

applicants purchased it.

9. The offence which has been alleged against the applicants is

under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. From the accusations in the

First Information Report and form the material which has been placed on

record by the prosecution in the form of statements of farmers, there are no

accusations against the applicants that at the inception of the transaction

between the applicants and the farmers, there was dishonest inducement by

the applicants to the farmers to deliver their product to the applicants. The

essence of accusations against the applicants in the First Information Report

is only to the extent that the applicants instead of selling the lentil to

Agricultural Produce Market Committee was sold it to NAFED and earned

Judgment 5 apl454.18+1.odt

huge profit. The prosecution has not been able to point out as to how the

ingredients of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are

fulfilled, even if allegations in the First Information Report are assumed to be

correct. At the most, it can be said that the applicants have failed to repay

the amount of lentil supplied by the farmers to the applicants. In the facts of

the present case, we are of the view that essential ingredients of the offence

punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out by

the prosecution. We are, therefore, satisfied that the issue involved in the

present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of State of Haryana ..vs..Bhajan Lal , reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC

335. Clause (1) of Paragraph No.102 of the said judgment clearly lays down

that if the accusations in the First Information Report are assumed to be

correct still no offence is made out against the accused. We are therefore,

satisfied that continuation of the prosecution against the applicants would

amount to abuse of process of the Court.

10. We, therefore, pass the following order:

First Information Report No.97 of 2018, dated 10 th February

2018 registered with non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the offence

punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

only as against the applicants in Criminal Application No.454 of 2018 and

Criminal Application No. 872 of 2018 is quashed and set aside

Judgment 6 apl454.18+1.odt

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

CRI.APPLN.NO.1888/2018.

In view of disposal of Criminal Application No.872 of 2018, the

instant application, praying for dispensing with typed copy of handwritten

documents/FIR, does not survive.

                             (AMIT B. BORKAR, J)                      (Z.A.HAQ, J)


RRaut..