Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Anup Dodiya and Niranjan Dodiya, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.223/2017 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Akola for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39 and 45 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2, Anup Agarkar, on 24.10.2017 alleging that the applicants had forged cheques and engaged in illegal money lending. The applicants contended that the complaint was malafide and a repeat of an earlier complaint which had been quashed by the High Court in Criminal Application No.822/2014 on 14.09.2016, where it was observed that no prima facie case of forgery was made out. The applicants further argued that respondent No.2 had suppressed the fact of the earlier quashed proceedings and obtained the FIR fraudulently. The court noted that respondent No.2 remained absent despite service. The court considered the handwriting expert report which opined that the signatures on the disputed cheques were not of the applicants. The court held that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law as it was based on the same allegations without any new material and with suppression of earlier judicial proceedings. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process of Law - The court considered whether a second FIR on same allegations, after earlier complaint was quashed, amounts to abuse of process. Held that filing repeated complaints without new material and suppressing earlier proceedings is malafide and warrants quashing (Paras 6-10).
B) Indian Penal Code - Forgery and Cheating - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC - Prima Facie Case - The court examined the handwriting expert report which indicated that signatures on cheques were not of the applicants. Held that no prima facie case of forgery is made out (Paras 11-12).
C) Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 - Offences under Sections 39 and 45 - Applicability - The court noted that the allegations of money lending without license were not substantiated. Held that the FIR under this Act also lacks merit (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered against the applicants for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Sections 39 and 45 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 should be quashed on the ground of malafide complaint and suppression of facts.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed FIR No.223/2017 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Akola and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR
- Abuse of process of law
- Malafide complaint
- Suppression of material facts
- Repeated complaints
- Section 482 CrPC
- Handwriting expert report
- Prima facie case
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 156
Criminal Application (APL) No.906 of 2017
Sunil B. Shukre, Madhav J. Jamdar
Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.G. Joshi for applicants; Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for respondent No.1/State
Anup s/o Niranjan Dodiya and Niranjan Chunnilal Dodiya
State of Maharashtra and Anup Gulabrao Agarkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application for quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC
Remedy Sought
Quashing of FIR No.223/2017 and all proceedings arising therefrom
Filing Reason
Allegations of forgery, cheating, and illegal money lending; applicants claim complaint is malafide and repeat of earlier quashed complaint
Previous Decisions
Criminal Application No.822/2014 was disposed on 14.09.2016 quashing order under Section 156(3) CrPC for lack of prima facie case regarding forgery of cheques
Issues
Whether the FIR is an abuse of process of law due to malafide complaint and suppression of facts
Whether a prima facie case for offences under IPC and Money Lending Act is made out
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants submitted that the complaint is malafide, repeat of earlier quashed complaint, and obtained by suppressing material facts
Respondent No.2 remained absent despite service; State opposed but did not present strong counter-arguments
Ratio Decidendi
Filing a second FIR on the same allegations after the earlier complaint was quashed, without any new material and with suppression of the earlier judicial proceedings, constitutes an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of the First Information Report registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39 and 45 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)Act, 2014 vide Crime No.223/2017 at Police Station, City Kotwali, Akola.
Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate submits that the aforestated offences registered against applicants on 24.10.2017 are a result of a malafide complaint made by respondent No.2 against the applicants.
Mr. Mardikar, further submits that one of us (Shukre, J) , on 14.09.2016, while disposing of Criminal Application No.822/2014, had observed that in so far as allegation of forgery of various cheques by applicant No.1 was concerned, no prima-facie case was made out and, therefore, quashed the impugned order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Procedural History
FIR No.223/2017 registered on 24.10.2017. Applicants filed Criminal Application (APL) No.906/2017 for quashing. On 23.01.2019, court directed production of handwriting expert report. Report filed. Application taken up for final disposal on 30.01.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code: 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B
- Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014: 39, 45
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482, 156(3)
