Quashed

Janardan Vitthalrao Patil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Apr 2012APPLN/47/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a criminal case of cheating against a minor applicant (15 years old at the time of incident). The court held that the minor could be attributed no mens rea or intention as his father allegedly used his name to wrongly transfer land, thus deserving relief, while the case continues against other accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal case R.C.C. No. 299 of 2011 quashed against applicant No. 1; case to continue against other accused.

Janardan Vitthalrao Patil and Anr. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 CriApln 47/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2012

¶5

1 Janardan s/o Vitthalrao Patil Applicants

¶6

2 Vitthalrao s/o Kashinath Patil

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

1 The State of Maharashtra Respondents

¶9

2 Bapurao s/o Eknath Telange

¶10

Shri S.J. Salgare, Advocate for the applicants
Shri S.B. Pulkundwar, APP for the respondent No.1/State
Shri A.N.Sabnis, Advocate for the respondent No.2

¶11

CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J.
DATE : 11th April, 2012

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1.Learned counsel for the applicants stated that
this application is not pressed as far as applicant No.2
is concerned.

¶14

2.Applicant No. 1 is thus the only accused who is
seeking quashment of the criminal case initiated against
him. If he succeeds, the criminal case would stand
quashed against him alone and the case would continue
against other accused.

¶15

3.Applicant No.1, at the time of incident was 15
years old. The allegation is that his father Vitthalrao

¶16

2 CriApln 47/12

¶17

and others with common intention to cheat the complainant, executed a false document and showed that the complainant’s father had executed a sale-deed of his land in favour of the applicant while he was minor. The applicant No.1’s father was shown as guardian of applicant No.1. Assuming that the allegations are truthful, yet the applicant No.1, who was minor then, cannot be attributed with any mens rea or intention to commit offence. It is clear that his father used his name to get the property wrongfully transferred. It was his father who wanted to take control over the land in question. The applicant No.1 thus had no any intention to either commit the offence or to cause wrongful loss to the complainant’s father. The applicant No.1 therefore deserves relief.

¶18

4.The case R.C.C. No. 299 of 2011, pending in the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir,
stands quashed against applicant No. 1 Janardan s/o
Vitthalrao Patil. The case shall continue against the
other accused.

¶19

In view of above, criminal application stands
disposed of.

¶20

 ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J. )

¶21

SRM/11/4/12

¶22

3 CriApln 47/12

Janardan Vitthalrao Patil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardan Vitthalrao Patil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

B Radhakrishnan and Anr. Vs M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and Anr.

Ramchandra Govind Kulkarni Vs Pruthviraj Vishvas Chavan and Anr.

Parmeshwar Balaji Murkute and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Harichand @ Harischandra Ananta Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Ravindra Udawant Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ravindra Jagannath Udawant Vs the State of Mah and Ors.