Allowed

Yogesh Chandrakant Bhalerao and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2012APPLN/1479/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants, members of a credit society, filed criminal applications for quashing a case initiated by a respondent who, upon appearing, alleged a misunderstanding and requested withdrawal. The court accepted the withdrawal and quashed the case.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case initiated by respondent No.2 is quashed and the Criminal Applications are disposed of.

Yogesh Chandrakant Bhalerao and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

cria885.12

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 885 OF 2012 WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1479 OF 2012

¶7

(Yogesh Chandrakant Bhalerao & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra &
Anr.)

¶8

Office Notes,Office MemorandaCourt's or Judge's orders
of Coram,appearances, Court's
orders or directions andCORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.
Registrar's ordersDATED : 19.04.2012

¶9

Mr. P.R. Patil h/f. Mr. V.S. Badakh, Advocate
for the applicants.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, A.P.P. for
respondent/State.
Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.
2.

¶10

1.These applications are filed
by the accused for quashment of the
criminal case initiated by respondent
No.2. The applicants are members of
Board of Directors and employees of the
credit society. Respondent No.2/
Complainant is present before the Court
and is identified by his advocate. He
now says that due to misunderstanding
he had lodged the complaint against the
applicants. He said that he does not

¶11

2 cria885.12

¶12

want to proceed with the case. In view
of this, the prosecution of the
applicant is futile and it would waste
the Court’s time. It is better to put
an end to this case. The case initiated
with the complaint of respondent No.2
stands quashed.

¶13

2.Even the applicants agree that
they would not take any punitive action
againstrespondentNo.2,after
conclusion of this case.

¶14

3.TheCriminalApplications
stand disposed of.

¶15

[A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]

¶16

snk/2012/APR12/cria885.12

Yogesh Chandrakant Bhalerao and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Chandrakant Bhalerao and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taha Parvin Divorced Sk Arefoddin Vs Shaikh Arefddin Shaikh Ziyaddin

Tamboli Syed Ahmed Sahab Vs Venkatesh Tukaram Irbatanwar

Pirsab Hannan Patel and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Yogesh Chandrakant Bhalerao and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Manik Marotrao Kukalwar Vs the State of Mah

Uma Shankarrao Rachewad Vs Appropriate Authority Nanded and Sub Divisional Officer Nanded