In a criminal writ petition, the High Court of Bombay, Bombay Bench, rejected the petitioners' prayer to quash a criminal complaint. The court held that a triable case was made out by the complainant and the matter was not fit for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Application for quashing of complaint rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 2007
Sachin Sudhir Karkhanis and ors...Petitioners.
Vs.
Kiran Anant Karnik and ors...Respondents.
Ms. Gauri Godse for the Petitioners.
Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP. for the State.
CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.
DATE : August 23, 2007
P.C.
1. Heard Ms. Godse, the learned counsel for the
petitioners who are accused in RCC No.493 of 2006. The
said complaint is filed against the Respondent No.1 for
offences punishable under Section-418,420, 427, 504 and
506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners are in-laws of the complainant.
Money transaction between the parties is not disputed.
3. I have perused the averments made in the complaint
and more particularly, in Paragraph Nos. 14 and 16
therein and I am satisfied that a triable case has been
made out by the complainant. This is not a fit case to
invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
:2:
4. Ms. Godse relied upon a decision of this court in
the case of Anil Madhok Vs. Prem Maini, Syndicate Bank
and another reported in (1999 (Supp) Bom. C.R.670) and
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Shankar
Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in
(2005) 10 S.C.C. 336 and prayed for quashing of
complaint
5. As noted earlier, a prima facie case for trial has
been made out by the complainant against the present
petitioners and both the parties are closely related to
each other.
6. Hence, application is rejected.
(B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash a criminal complaint filed against close relatives of the complainant where a triable case is mad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Madhok Vs. Prem Maini, Syndicate Bank and anotherDistinguished¶13
(1999 (Supp) Bom. C.R.670) · Who else cites this
Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar and anotherDistinguished¶13
(2005) 10 S.C.C. 336 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachin Sudhir Karkhanis and ors
Kiran Anant Karnik and ors
B. H. Marlapalle
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court