Allowed

Pandurang Ananda Dhole and Anr. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC22 Feb 2011APPLN/63/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad, by affidavit furnished by the original complainant, the accused applicants were present and identified. The original complainant had altered her deposition and admitted that the accused had not been involved in any alleged incident. The court quashed the F.I.R. No. 33/2010 and the ongoing criminal proceedings against the

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside F.I.R. No. 33/2010 and disposed of both Criminal Applications No. 63/2011 and No. 2534/2010.

Pandurang Ananda Dhole and Anr. Vs the State of Mah — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Cri.Appln.63/2011 in Cri.Appln.2534/2010

¶3

1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.63/2011.

¶6

(Pandurang s/o Ananda Dhole and Anr. Vs. The State of Mah. And Anr.)

¶7

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2534/2010. (Pandurang s/o Ananda Dhole and Anr. Vs. The State of Mah. And Anr.)

¶9

Office notes, office Memoranda of

¶10

Coram,appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶11

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶12

Smt.SS Jadhav, Adv. for applicants; Mr.KM Suraywanshi, APP for State. Mr.SV Adwant, Adv. For Resp.No.2/Complainant.

¶13

¶14

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.

¶15

DATE :22nd February, 2011.

¶16

1. Heard.

¶17

By Criminal Application No.63/2011, joint request is made by the applicants as well as Respondent No.2, seeking to compromise the dispute and also urging to quash the F.I.R. on the basis of which Crime No.33/2010 was registered at Newasa Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶18

¶19

1. The applicants Pandurang, Amol and complainant -Smt. Sangita are present, identified by respective counsel.

¶20

1. By Criminal Application No.2534/2010, F.I.R.No.33/2010 for the above referred offences is sought to be quashed and set aside –

¶21

by the applicants/accused Pandurang and Amol.

¶22

1. Since the parties reside in the same village and have patched up their controversies and desire to have good relations, the original complainant accepts, the accusations against the accused Pandurang and his son Amol were made out of

¶23

¶24

Cri.Appln.63/2011 in Cri.Appln.2534/2010

¶25

frustration and no event of any hurling in the caste of the complainant has indeed taken place. The complainant also accepts that on 22.5.2010, Amol was at Aurangabad.

¶26

Taking these aspect into consideration, the F.I.R., vide Crime No. – 33/2010, registered against the accused/applicants Pandurang and Amol, referred above, is quashed and set aside.

¶27

Smt. Jadhav, on instructions, informs, the accused/applicants Pandurang and Amol would not further take up the matter including prosecuting the complainant in and by way of malicious prosecution.

¶28

1. Both the applications disposed of as above.

¶29

(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE

¶30

bdv/

Pandurang Ananda Dhole and Anr. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Ananda Dhole and Anr. v. the State of Mah

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

Mahada @ Mahadeo Namdeo Karle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vitthal Lalu Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vilas Vitthal Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dharamendra Indarsingh @ Sattar Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Sakharam Kanade Vs the State of Mah

Ranjana Ramchandra Tirthkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.