Allowed

Palesh Bherulal Jain and Anr. v. Nareshchandra M Rathod and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Nov 2012APL/420/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Permission was granted to compound criminal proceedings in a cheating case where the parties resolved their controversy by payment of gold ornaments and amounts. Consequently, the prosecution was quashed, and the bond was raised.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution subject of the present Application is quashed and set aside; bond executed by the original-complainant is raised.

Palesh Bherulal Jain and Anr. Vs Nareshchandra M Rathod… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

apl.420-2012.sxw

acd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 420 OF 2012

¶6

Palesh Bherulal Jain & Anr.

¶7

..Applicants.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Nareshchandra M. Rathod & Ors. ..Respondents

¶10

Mr. A.H.H. Ponda, Counsel i/b Ms. Prerna Silimkar, for the Applicants. Mr. D.P. Adsule, A.P.P., for the State. Mr. K.R. Iyengar, with Ms. Anjali Mannapalli, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.

¶12

DATE : 5^th November, 2012.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1 Heard Mr. Phonda, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Iyengar, learned Counsel for the Respondent-original Complainant.

¶15

2 A joint request is made to allow the parties to compound the

¶16

criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.69/PW/2005 pending before the learned Additional C.M.M. 47^th Court, Esplande, Mumbai for an offence

¶17

¶18

apl.420-2012.sxw

¶19

punishable under Sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

¶20

3 The above provisions of penal statute are compoundable with the permission of the Court. Considering the ground reality as parties have resolved their controversy, permission is accorded.

¶21

4 On 23.10.2012, the Consent Terms were tendered by both the

¶22

sides, the figures of payments were incorporated by them about receipt by the Applicant and about the original-complainant (Respondent No.1).

¶23

5 Today a statement is made, thereby enclosing receipts issued by the Applicant No.1-Palesh Bherulal Jain, Applicant No.2-Rajesh Bherulal Jain that they have received the amount pursuant to the order dated 23.10.2012 in the present Application. The Complainant has no grievance to resolve the controversy as the Applicants are paid equivalent value of gold ornaments from Nareschandra Rathod, Ganpat Dagalia, partner of Mohini Chain, and Devendra Dagalia partner of Sahel Palace.

¶24

¶25

apl.420-2012.sxw

¶26

6 Both parties have agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-

¶27

by Applicants and Rs.50,000/- by the original-complainant, as costs to be deposited in the High Court Legal Service Committee up to 3^rd December, 2012.

¶28

7 The aforementioned three Complainants submit, they have no claim in respect of the balance gold lying in the Police Station in the aforesaid case. By consent, the bond executed by the original-complainant with the Registry of this Court dated 1.11.2012 is raised.

¶29

8 In the above situation, the prosecution subject of the present Application being Criminal Case No.69/PW/2005 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47^th Court, Esplande, Mumbai for an offence under Sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 120-B of I.P.C. qua the Applicants and aforementioned three Complainants is quashed and set aside.

¶30

(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

Palesh Bherulal Jain and Anr. v. Nareshchandra M Rathod and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palesh Bherulal Jain and Anr. v. Nareshchandra M Rathod 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramesh Tukaram Kalokhe

Chandulal B. Hinduja and Arn Vs Madhu Ramchand Lund and Anr.

Rajendra Kalicharan Verma Vs M/S. Samlalp Steel Corporation and Ors.

Zaira D. Gomes Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parsuram Maruti Tawade Vs M/S. Ajinkya Co-Op.Credit Soc. Ltd, and Anr.

Omprakash Jhunjhunwala Vs Prabhat Ramrichpal Jhunjhunwala and Ors.