Allowed

Khan Khairmohammad Hussainkhan v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2012APPLN/915/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench, Aurangabad, granted the applicants' application to quash Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 438 of 2011. The judgment notes that the underlying private complaint involved a property dispute settled amicably, leading the Court to quash the registration of the offence and related proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 438 of 2011 and the proceedings pursuant to it including the registration of offence, investigation etc. were quashed.

Khan Khairmohammad Hussainkhan Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 CA915/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 915 OF 2012

¶4

Khan Khairmohammad Hussainkhan

¶5

Applicants

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra Respondents

¶8

2 Shaikh Shoukatali Husain

¶9

3 Shaikh Shakirhusain Abdulrashid

¶10

4 Shaikh Kamarsultana Abdulrashid

¶11

Shri A.R. Devakate, Advocate for the applicants
Shri G.R. Ingole, APP for the respondent No.1/State
Shri Shaikh A. Jahagirdar, Adv for respondent No.2
Shri V.Y. Bhide, Adv for respondent Nos. 3 & 4

¶12

 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.
 DATED : 3rd April, 2012

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1.This application seeking quashment of Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 438 of 2011 and further
proceedings pursuant to the said case.

¶15

2.The respondent No.2 filed a private complaint
before the learned J.M.F.C. Rahuri, alleging that the
applicant and others had committed offence punishable
under Secs. 463, 464, 465, 468, 471 r/w Sec. 34 of
I.P.C. He alleged that the other accused executed a
sale-deed in favour of the applicant stating therein
that he had right to use certain common lane, and in
view of the transaction, the applicant will be entitled
to use such common lane. This common lane is situated
between the property of the vendor and respondent No.

¶16

2 CA915/12

¶17

2/complainant. The complainant felt threatened that his
property likely to be invaded, encroached etc., and so,
instead of filing civil suit for setting aside the
sale-deed, he lodged this complaint. Learned Magistrate
without realizing the nature of the complaint cursorily
passed the impugned order directing the Police
Inspector to register the offence, investigate into the
complaint and submit the report.

¶18

3.The applicant as well as respondent No.2 are
present before the Court stating that they have settled
the case amicably and the respondent No.2 filed
affidavit that he would withdraw all the allegations
made by him against the applicant and respondent No.3.
The applicant and respondent No.3 also agreed not to
take any further action against respondent No.2. In
this manner, the dispute come to an end. As such, the
complaint did not deserve the attention which the
learned Magistrate gave it.

¶19

4.In view of above, application is allowed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 438 of 2011 and
the proceedings pursuant to it including the
registration of offence, investigation etc. shall stand
quashed.

¶20

SRM/3/4/12

¶21

3 CA915/12

Khan Khairmohammad Hussainkhan v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khan Khairmohammad Hussainkhan v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Sukhdeo Baburao Pawar Vs Babitabai Sukhdeo Pawar and Ors.

Yadavrao Lmukundrao Nemanniwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Marketing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Appasaheb Babanrao Yewale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narayan Sopan Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Vasant Dukale Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Parimandal) a.Bad and Ors.