The court rejected a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, holding the offence non-compoundable despite claims of amicable settlement, and disposed of the application.
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 OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL ِ APPLICATION NO. 1996 OF 2010
Uttam Maroti Savant and others
..APPLICANTS
The State of Maharashtra and another
..RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.G. Dargad, advocate for applicants. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, advocate for respondent no.2.
(CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 14th September, 2010.
PER COURT :
gas/cri1996.10
( V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal complaint u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act falls under compoundable offences capable of quashing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Uttam Maroti Savant and others
The State of Maharashtra
another
V.R. Kingaonkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
