LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SAYED MOHAMMED MASOOD AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 275
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
SAYED MOHAMMED MASOOD AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1416 of 2009)
AUGUST 4, 2009
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing
of FIR - By High Court - Challenge to - Held: On facts, the
B
4
a/legation made in the FIR and the materials collected during c
investigation, ought to be taken to its logical end - In peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment
..
of High Court cannot be sustained - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
406, 420 and 1208.
Respondent no.1 is Chairman-cum-Managing D
Director of a company. Respondent no.2 had entered into
--t
an agreement with the said Company. He lodged FIR
alleging cheating and misappropriation of funds by the
Company. Respondent no.1 filed writ petition praying for
quashing of the FIR. The High Court quashed the FIR
E
holding that the dispute between the parties revolved on
interpretation of clauses contained in the agreement
entered into between respondent no.2 and company and
-J..
that no offence u/ss. 406, 420 and 1208 IPC was made
out. Hence the present appeal.
F
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: A simple breach of contract or a case
involving pure civil dispute would not attract the penal
provisions contained in the Indian Penal Code either G
under Section 406 or Section 420 thereof. Had the dispute
;.
between the parties rested in the aforementioned
premise, probably this Court would not have interfered
with the judgment of the High Court; but then, attention
275
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A was drawn to certain evidences which surfaced during
investigation and disclosed before this Court by the State
+
in the grounds stated in this Memo of Appeal. The
allegation made in the FIR and the materials collected
during investigation, in the considered opinion of this
B Court, should be allowed to be taken to its logical end.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and
particularly in view of the materials which surfaced
during investigation, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. [Paras 12, 13, 14 and 17] [283-H; 284-A-B; 285-
c F; 288-F-G]
R. Ka/yani v. Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516;
Mahesh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2009 (4)
SCALE 66; State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain
Mohd. S. Husain (200S:) 1 SCC 213; A/pie Finance Ltd. v. P.
D Sadasivan & Anr. (2001) 3 SCC 513; Radha Bal/av Pal &
Anr. v. Emperor AIR 1~139 Calcutta 327; Velji Raghavji Patel
v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1433; Vir Prakash
~
Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 373; All
~
Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited & Ors. v. Dhanesh
E Badarmal Jain & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 776; New india
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. (2009) 1 SCALE
252; U. Dhar & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2003) 2
SCC 219 and Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar & Anr.
(2005) 10 sec 336, referred to.
F
Case Law Reference:
c2009) 1 sec 516
referred to
Para 11
2009 (4) SCALE 61)
referred to
Para 11
G
{2oos) 1 sec 213
referred to
Para 11
(2001) 3 sec 513
referred to
Para 15
...
AIR 1939 Calcutta 327 referred to
Para 15
AIR 1965 SC 1433
referred to
Para 15
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SAYED MOHAMMED 277
MASOOD AND ANR.
(2001) 1 sec 373
referred to
Para 15
A
.,
~
(2007) 14 sec 776
referred to
Para 15
(2009) 1 SCALE 252
referred to
Para 15
j
(2003) 2 sec 219
referred to
Para 15
B
(2005) 1 o sec 336
referred to
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1416 of 2009 .
...
c
From the Judgment & Order dated 3.3.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.
2333 of 2007.
K.V. Vishwanathan, Sanjay Kharde, Ravindra Keshavrao
Adsure for the Appellants.
D
~
Bindu K. Nair, Rishi Matoliya, Niraj Gupta, Atul B. Dakh,
~
Kailash Chand for the Respondents.
J
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The State of Maharashtra is before us aggrieved by and
+
dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2008
passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
F
Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2333 of 2007 quashing
a First Information Report ("FIR") lodged by the respondent No.2
herein at the Cuff Parade Police Station, Mumbai.
3. The first respondent is the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director of Mis City Limouzines (India) Ltd. (heExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.