Dismissed

Prakash Pundlik Palaskar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Ps Dongaon Police Station Tah Mehkar Distt Buldhana

Bombay HC19 Oct 2012APL/536/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR regarding cheating and forgery, the Court dismissed the plea observing prima facie disclosure of an offence but granted liberty to seek quashing if the dispute is amicably settled. Hearings date 19.10.2012.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with liberty to file appropriate proceedings for quashing the FIR based on settlement.

Prakash Pundlik Palaskar and Others Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1910apl536.12.odt

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Criminal Application (apl) No. 536 of 2012

¶5

Prakash Pundlik Palaskar & ors.

¶6

...Versus...

¶7

State of Maharashtra & anr.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directio ns and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Mr.R.P. Ghanwat Advocate for Applicants.

¶10

Mr. Sonare, APP, for respondent no.1.

¶11

CORAM : P.V. Hardas & A.P. Bhangale, JJ. DATE : 19.10.2012.

¶12

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the First Information Report No. 37/10 registered by Dongaon police station in a case which is pending before J.M.F.C. Mehkar, district Buldana. 2. The aforesaid offence came to be registered against the present applicants on the basis of a report dated 8.5.2010 complaining of commission of offence punishable under Sections 407 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It appears that

¶13

1910apl536.12.odt

¶14

2/2

¶15

while granting anticipatory bail to the applicants, this Court had directed, as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, that an amount of Rs.19,26,453/-, which was the subject matter of the offence, would be paid to the depositors of the grains on or before 10.8.2010.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants has urged before us that in the light of the statement of the complainant which has been recorded, it appears that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the present applicants any further. There is, however, no prayer in this application for quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties to the proceedings have settled their dispute. What is averred in the present application and what is urged before us is that perusal of the first information report does not disclose commission of cognizable offence. Learned A.P.P. states on instructions that charge-sheet in this behalf has already been filed and in respect of the report lodged by the accused “B summary” has been filed.

¶17

While dismissing the present application, as we have noticed that prima facie an offence is disclosed, we grant liberty to the applicants to file appropriate proceedings for quashing of the first information report on the ground that the dispute between the applicants and the complainant has been amicably settled. Application is accordingly dismissed, with liberty as prayed

¶18

for.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

/TA/

Prakash Pundlik Palaskar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Ps Dongaon Police Station Tah Mehkar Distt Buldhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Pundlik Palaskar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Ps Dongaon Police Station Tah Mehkar Distt Buldhana

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

Keshav S/O Laxmanrao Nandanwar Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Nandanwan Nagpur

State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Hudkeshwar Nagpur City Vs Avinash Anil Ganer and Others

Nasir Beg Habib Beg Mirza Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.

Shri Kishor Samrite Ex Mla Samajwadi Party Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Dept of Energy Mantralaya Mumbai

Ashraf Shafique Ahmad Ansari Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.

Mohan Marotrao Karemore Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Secty and Ors.