Dismissed

Pandhari Chaman Vaidnyanik Phalotpadak Sangh v. Namdev Keshav Mane and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2010APPLN/4053/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the application to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against an individual alleged to have filed a false application via a forged signature in a civil suit. The court held that the matter involves a question of fact requiring evidence and cannot be finally determined at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was rejected as the issue requires determination after evidence is led.

Pandhari Chaman Vaidnyanik Phalotpadak Sangh Vs Namdev Keshav Mane and Anr. — Bombay HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 crapln405310

¶2

jdk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 4053 OF 2010

¶4

Pandhari Chaman Vaidnyanik Phalotpadak Sangh, Pandharpur & Ors. ..Applicants

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Namdeo Keshav Mane and Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Amit M.Shete Adv. for applicants Smt. U.V.Kejariwal APP for State

¶8

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2010

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-plaintiff and the

¶11

learned APP for the State.

¶12

2 Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge S.D. Pandharpur, this application has been preferred. By the said order, the learned Judge rejected the application Exh. 108 of the applicant for proceeding against one Sharad Namdeo Mane under Section 340 of Cr.P.C..

¶13

3 The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 82 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge S.D. Pandharpur against Respondent no.1 for specific performance of contract and alternatively for recovery of amount. The applicants are original plaintiffs in Suit No. 82 of 2002 and

¶14

2 crapln405310

¶15

the Respondent No.1 therein is the original Defendant. It is the case of the applicant that one Sharad Namdeo Mane who is no way concerned with the case, has filed an application in the said proceedings. The case of the applicant is that Sharad Namdeo Mane is not a power of attorney holder of respondent no.1 in the said proceedings, yet he has posed himself as a power of attorney holder of Respondent No.1 in the proceeding i.e. Suit No. 82 of 2002 and filed a false application Exh. 102/D, under his signature. In his application Exh. 108, the present applicant had prayed that the Court should take note of this fact and proceed against Sharad Mane under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

¶16

4 The learned Judge has observed that the entire evidence has not yet been led by both sides and to know whether the said person or the respondent had tried to mislead the Court, the entire evidence should be before the Court. Hence, it is observed in the said order that it was not necessary to take cognizance of the said application at this stage.

¶17

5 Looking to the facts alleged, obviously to reach a definite conclusion either way it would be necessary for the learned Judge to consider all the evidence and thereafter reach a finding as to whether there was an attempt to mislead him or any false application has been filed before him. In this view of the matter, no error can be found with

¶18

3 crapln405310

¶19

the order of the learned Judge. Hence, application is rejected.

¶20

4 Needless to say that the learned Judge will consider the application after the entire evidence is led and after hearing the necessary parties will dispose it of in accordance with law.

¶21

[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]

Pandhari Chaman Vaidnyanik Phalotpadak Sangh v. Namdev Keshav Mane and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandhari Chaman Vaidnyanik Phalotpadak Sangh v. Namdev Keshav Mane 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

Samadhan Navnath Chandankar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Siddhu @ Siddharam Kashinath Fulari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Jairam Keni Vs Dy. Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Vidhyadhar Balwant Khot and Anr. Vs Savita Ravindra Khot

Sudam Sakharam Galande and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krimpanmakal Sebastian Joseph Vs Kapil Radhakrishan Bodha and Anr.