Dismissed

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

Bombay HC2 Nov 2012APPLN/1759/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal application dismissed. The Court held that primary evidence implicates the applicants in offences under IPC sections 406, 420, and 120-B regarding ancestral property disputes. No deeper inquiry into evidence is warranted at this stage; thus, the lower courts' rejection of the discharge application stands.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; discharge application rejection upheld.

Chandulal B. Hinduja and Arn Vs Madhu Ramchand Lund and… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

926.appln.1759.2010.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1759 OF 2010 IN CASE NO.06/SW/2008

¶5

Chandulal B. Hinduja & Anr.

¶6

..Applicants.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Smt.Madhu Ramchand Lund & Anr.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr.M.G.Shukla i/by Mr.Girish Kulkarni for the applicants. Mr.A.P.Wachasundar i/by Meghraj & Associates for the respondents.

¶11

Mrs. P.P.Bhosale APP for the respondent/State.

¶12

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL J.

¶13

DATE : NOVEMBER 2, 2012.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Heard finally. The controversy between sister as a complainant and her brothers in respect of the ancestral immovable property has landed in civil litigation. The petitioners have asserted rights based on will and claimed that it has been probated. The sister disputes same and genuineness of said will. Her another grievance is that fraudulently her no objection was recorded by the applicants and she was cheated in respect of her rights in the immovable property of her parents.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶17

Pg 1 of 2

¶18

926.appln.1759.2010.doc

¶19

there cannot be entrustment in terms of Section 406 of I.P.C. nor element of cheating in terms of Section 415 and 420 of I.P.C. is projected.

¶20

At this stage of the matter the primary evidence implicates the petitioners with accusation involving for the offences P/u/s 406, 420, 120-B of I.P.C. At this stage this Court is not expected to have a dissection of entire evidence and deal with the matter with a roving inquiry. Since primary material is available against the petitioners, rejection of the discharge application by both the Courts, does not call for any interference. Reliance placed to the Judgment of Full Bench in the matter of Susen Behary Roy Vs. Emperor A.I.R. 1931 Calcutta 184 (FB) deals with the appreciation of the evidence and conviction recorded under Section 406 of I.P.C. in respect of a person who intermeddles with the estate

¶21

of a deceased or does any other act which belongs to the office of the executor where there is no rightful executor.

¶22

Application is dismissed.

¶23

[ K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ]

¶24

/kukIik dks”Vh

¶25

Pg 2 of 2

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Sidram Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Jambuwant Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Sidram Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramesh Tukaram Kalokhe

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

Umarpharq Mustafa Khan Vs Farjana Umarpharq Khan Alias Farjana Jalaluddin Kazi and Anr.