Allowed

Amit Singh Gill v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jul 2010APPLN/3176/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application for quashing a criminal complaint filed for cheating and forgery offences. The court permitted quashing after the original complainant filed an affidavit stating that the parties had amicably settled the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 is quashed and the application is disposed of.

Amit Singh Gill Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

Crim.Appln. No.3176/2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3176 OF 2010

¶6

Amit Singh Gill...Applicant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr....Respondents

¶7

Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant.
Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State.
Mrs.Sulabha V. Rane i/b. M/s.Parab & Associates for
Responent No.2.

¶8

 CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶9

 DATED : JULY 27, 2010

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

1Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel
for respondent no.2.

¶12

2This is an application for quashing the
complaint filed by respondent no.2 by consent.

¶13

3A complaint was filed by respondent no.2

¶14

for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,

¶15

468, 471 of the IPC. A chargesheet was filed and

¶16

case is now pending in the Esplanade Court, Mumbai

¶17

2 Crim.Appln. No.3176/2010

¶18

vide C.C.No.46/P/2003.

¶19

4 Respondent no.2 � original complainant has

¶20

filed an affidavit-in-reply in which he has stated
that he has no objection if the said complaint is
quashed since the parties have amicably settled the
dispute.

¶21

5 In view of the judgments in the cases of

¶22

Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, reported in
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1969 and the judgment in the
case of Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs. State of Haryana

¶23

& Anr., reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1968,

¶24

there is no impediment for quashing the complaint
where principal allegation is under Section 420 of
the IPC.

¶25

6Application is allowed in terms of prayer

¶26

clause (a) and is disposed of.

Amit Singh Gill v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Singh Gill v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priti Ashish Patil Vs Anil Barku Sopnawane and Anr.

Soheb Abdul Reheman Khatri Vs Afrien Soheb Khatri and Anr.

Priti Ashish Patil Vs Anil Barku Sopnawane and Anr.

Amit Sukumar Dhanawade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Parmeet Arora @ Sonia Vs Mahadevan Subbiah and Anr.

Captain Govind Narayan Sharma Vs Threewin Maritime (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.