1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD //UNREPORTED// CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1080 of 2008 Date of decision: 15/9/2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? /No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see /No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? /No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/1080-08crapl 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1080 of 2008 Chandraprakash Antaram Joshi, Age 47 years, Occu. Business, r/o Shahada, Taluka Shahada, District Nandurbar. ...PETITIONER (Original accused) VERSUS Sanjay Puri s/o Punampuri Gosavi, Age 37 years, Occu. Business, r/o Shahada, Taluka Shahada, District Nandurbar. ...RESPONDENT (Original complainant) ... Mr. S.M.Godsay, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. Hemant Surve, Adv., for respondent. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15/9/2009 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Counsel for the accused and the original complainant. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3 2. Prosecution, in RCC No.87/2005, for an offense under Section 420 of IPC, is sought to be quashed by the accused. 3. The matrix of the matter illustrate that on 18.10.2003, the accused Chandraprakash entered into an agreement with the complainant Sanjay of a tenanted premises belonging to one Abbas Hussain Nuruddin Bohari and received Rs. 3,00,000/- as deposit. The possession of the shop was given purportedly to the said complainant Sanjay. 4. The complainant subsequently learnt that, indeed, there existed already an agreement dt.30th Oct.,2002, entered by Chandraprakash with one Harish from whom Chandraprakash has received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. two lacs) and also recorded having parted possession of Pavan Restaurent in favour of said Harish. It was for a period of three years. 5. The Counsel submits, his possession is obstructed by Harish, he being clamped with the agreement dt.30.10.2002. 6. Because of inaction of the Police the applicant has resorted to approach the learned Judge in STCC No.108/2005 wherein, by order dt. 4.7.2005, process in terms of Section 420 of IPC 4 is initiated. At this stage of the matter, ingredients within the bracket of Section 420 of IPC are indicated as the accused knew that he had already entered into an agreement on 30.10.2002 with Harish, still, to deceive the complainant Sanjay, he secretly entered into subsequent agreement, received Rs. 3,00,000/- and put this complainant also in difficulty, to face controversy with said Harish Kadam, apart from the controversy with the landlord. 7. The prosecution cannot be said to be totally arising out of civil controversies. The prima facie inhibition in the attempt of the accused/applicant is writ large. Consequently, the proceedings in RCC No.87/2005 cannot be quashed. It is not amounting to any abuse of process. Rule discharged. The observations are prima facie in nature. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/1080-08crapl