Disposed

Sudam Sambhaji Dhavale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2010APPLN/384/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal applications filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. The court held it inappropriate to address the dispute settlement argument as the appeal against conviction was pending, thus leaving the matter to the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

The applications were disposed of

Sudam Sambhaji Dhavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 384 OF 2010

¶5

Sudam s/o Sambhaji Dhavale VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & another

APPLICANT

RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 391 OF 2010

¶11

Balaji s/o Mahajan Kothewad APPLICANT VERSUS

¶12

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶13

RESPONDENT

¶14

Mr. B.A. Dhengle, advocate holding for Mr. T.J. Poul, advocate for the applicant in both the applications. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent/State in both the applications.

¶15

[CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]

¶16

[DATE : 3rd September, 2010]

¶17

PER COURT :

¶18

Heard.

¶19

The application is filed under section 482 of the

¶20

Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the judgement rendered by the trial Court for offence punishable under sections 468 and 471 of the I.P. Code.

¶21

Contention of the applicants is that the original

¶22

( 2 )

¶23

complainant settled the dispute and the matter is amicably settled between the parties and yet, permission to compound the offence is wrongly rejected by the trial Court.

¶24

The applicants are convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 420, 468 and 471 of the I.P. Code in R.C.C. No. 490/1999. They have also preferred an appeal against the judgement of conviction and sentence.

¶25

Since the conviction ordered is already subjudice before the Sessions Court, it would not be appropriate to make any comment on the issue pertaining to alleged compounding of the offence. The applicants are at liberty to agitate their contention before the Court of Sessions, including the argument that if the offence is not compoundable, then the mitigating circumstances may be considered. In any case, the proceedings cannot be quashed in the exercise of extraordinary powers when the remedy by way of appeal is already availed. Hence, both the applications are disposed of.

¶26

[V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE

¶27

NPJ/criapln384-391-10

¶28

( 3 )

Sudam Sambhaji Dhavale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudam Sambhaji Dhavale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Rajkumar Hiralal Dhotre Vs Dattatraya Murlidhar Vaidhya and Anr.

Anil Nivruti Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Ambadas Ruprao Tayade

The State of Mah Vs Dnyanoba Kisanrao Shingire

The State of Mah Vs Arun Narayan Shimpi

Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs Sudam Shankar Mundhe and Anr.