Allowed

Umesh Murlidhar Patil and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Aug 2009REVN/100/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision application, the Bench set aside a conviction for IPC 323. The court noted that while the factual matrix did not show an assault, the parties had resolved the controversy via compounding and settlement, making the conviction an unnecessary stigma.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 323 IPC set aside. Complaint compounded and dismissed.

Umesh Murlidhar Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶4

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶5

CRI. REVN. APPLN. NO.: 100 OF 2009

¶6

Umesh Murlidhar Patil and another

¶7

Versus State of Maharashtra and another

¶8

¶9

Mr. Vinod Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. D. R. Korde, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. Mr. A. N. Gaddime, Advocate i/b Mr. A. V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel. Private Complaint No.

¶12

863 of 2004 came to be filed by present Respondent No.2 against accused/ applicant. On trial, the learned J.M.F.C. found the accused/ applicant guilty, however, gave benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and directed the accused/ applicant to enter into a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year and remain under surveillance of the District Probation Officer for such period. Certain conditions were imposed and I am informed there is no deviation of these conditions. The accused carried the matter before the learned

¶13

¶14

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶16

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶17

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶18

Sessions Judge, Amalner and since there was no participation on behalf of the accused/ applicant, the appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 27th February, 2009.

¶19

The learned J.M.F.C. has recorded conviction for an offence under section 323 of I.P.C. in the terms indicated above, while the accused/ applicant were acquitted for the offence under section 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code. The parties have worked out the matter. They are present, identified by respective counsel. Considering the nature of allegations, though the learned Judge has given benefit of section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, still there may remain a stigma running against the accused/ application of the prosecution vide SCC 863 of 2004, both sides have resolved the controversy.

¶20

I have gone through the order under challenge. The view, the learned J.M.F.C. has taken, could be one of the view, however, the factual matrix does not

¶21

¶22

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶24

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶25

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶26

make out a case that there was an assault resulting in injuries sustained by the complainant, that too inflicted by the accused/ applicant herein. The conviction recorded against the accused/ applicant for an offence under section 323 of I.P.C. is set aside. The complaint [SCC No.863 of 2004] filed by respondent No.2, in terms of the compromise, is compounded and it is dismissed.

¶27

[K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.]

¶28

Dated:28/08/2009. ans/100

Umesh Murlidhar Patil and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Murlidhar Patil and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Jai Digambarrao Gunjkar

Karbhari Shahadu Bagul and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Prabhakar Nivrutti Kharat Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Manohar Deochand Koli Vs 1. the State of Mah and Anr.

Ranjitsingh Ambarsingh Rajput and Ors. Vs Chotusingh Onkarsingh Rajput

A Nafisa Begum Abdul Sattar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.