Allowed

Mansoorali D. Shivani and Ors. v. Gulam Ganus Ibrahim Shaikh and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2012REVN/562/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of a criminal revision where landlords convicted in a trespass and dishonesty case sought to compound offences due to a settled dispute with the tenant/complainant. The court allowed compounding for most charges and quashed the conviction for the intimidation charge.

What did the court decide?

Offences compounded except section 506 IPC; conviction for section 506 IPC quashed; applicants acquitted; impugned judgments and orders quashed.

Mansoorali D. Shivani and Ors. Vs Gulam… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

revn - 562/11

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPL. NO. 562 OF 2011

¶6

Mansoorali D. Shivani & Anr. ..Applicants. Versus Gulam Ganus Ibrahim and Anr. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Prathamesh Kamat i/b Mr. Kushal Mor. Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for R-1 and his wife. Ms. P.P.Bhosale, APP for the State.

¶8

Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : February 14, 2012 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Applicants are the original accused and respondent no.1 is the original complainant. The Applicants, at the instance of respondent no.1, are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427, 504, 506(2), 352, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 and instead of sentencing them to imprisonment, they were directed to be released giving benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for the period of two years on executing Bond. Applicants were also directed to hand over possession of the premises in question to the Complainant. The judgment and order of the Magistrate is

¶11

-: 2 :-

¶12

revn - 562/11

¶13

confirmed by the Sessions Judge in an appeal filed by the present applicants and thereafter the applicants have filed present revision.

¶14

The case of the prosecution, in short, is as follows : . Respondent No.1 is the tenant of shop No. 28, M.G.Road, Pune of which the Applicants are landlords. Civil litigation between the applicants and respondent no.1 is pending in respect of the premises in question. The applicants – landlords alleged threatened respondent no.1 to dispossess them from the shop premises by force. Apprehending this dispossession at the hands of the applicants, respondent filed suit in the Small Causes Court, Pune. The said suit was dismissed. Appeal preferred by respondent no.1 also came to be dismissed. Respondent no.1 thereafter approached this Court by way of writ petition and in that writ petition Applicants gave undertaking that they would not dispossess respondent no.1 without following due process of law.

¶15

The incident in question occurred on 26/11/2000. It is the case of respondent no.1 that Applicants forcibly break open and entered into shop with the help 5/6 persons. They assaulted him and his wife. It is the case of respondent no.1

¶16

-: 3 :-

¶17

revn - 562/11

¶18

that applicants entered into his shop and also stole imitation jewellery and merchandise worth Rs.1.50 lacs. Respondent no. 1 then approached the police and police taking cognizance of the offence, filed criminal case in the Court of JMFC, Pune which resulted into conviction of the applicants as stated above.

¶19

Today, the applicants, respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.1 have filed joint application for compounding the offences. According to the applicants, respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.1, the offences under which the applicants are convicted, except the offence punishable under section 506-II of IPC, are compoundable under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. So far as the offence punishable under section 506-II of IPC is concerned, both, the applicants as well as respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.1, state that there is no evidence to warrant conviction of the applicants for that offence.

¶20

The applicants, respondent no.1 as well as wife of respondent no.1 in this joint application have stated that the complaint in question came to be filed out of

¶21

-: 4 :-

¶22

revn - 562/11

¶23

misunderstanding between respondent no.1 and the applicants. It is further submitted that applicants and respondent no.1 have wasted sufficient money and time in various litigations and now are not interested in furthering the dispute any longer as far as the allegations in this particular case are concerned. In these circumstances, the applicants, respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.1 have prayed for compounding of offences for which the applicants have been convicted.

¶24

The present joint application is signed by the applicants, respondent no.1 and by the wife of respondent no.1 alongwith their respective Counsel. The applicants as well as respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.1 are present before this court. On specific query, respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.1 submitted that they have been explained contents of the application and they have understood the same. They specifically state that the offences under which the applicants are convicted be allowed to be compounded. The joint application is taken on record.

¶25

It is, thus, clear that dispute between the parties is now settled and the parties do not want to proceed further.

¶26

-: 5 :-

¶27

revn - 562/11

¶28

The offences under which the applicants are convicted, except the offence punishable under section 506-II of IPC, are compoundable under section 320 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. In so far as the offence punishable under section 506-II of IPC is concerned, the parties agree that there is no evidence. the allegations made by respondent no.1 in the complaint against the applicants are personal in nature and there is no element of public law involved in it.

¶29

In these facts and circumstances, in my view, no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings of criminal case and in pursuance of the prayer of the applicants and respondent no.1 and his wife, the offences deserve to be compounded. In the light of above discussion, the revision application is disposed of by passing following order.

¶30

-: O R D E R :-

¶31

(i) The offences for which the applicants are convicted, except the offence punishable u/s 506-II of IPC, are allowed to be compounded under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶32

(ii) In so far as conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable u/s 506-II of IPC is concerned,

¶33

-: 6 :-

¶34

revn - 562/11

¶35

same is quashed and set aside in view of the statements made by respondent no.1

¶36

(iii) The impugned judgments and orders passed by the JMFC, Pune and Sessions Judge, Pune are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶37

(iv) The applicants stand acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 447, 427, 504, 506(2), 352, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908.

¶38

(v) Revision Application stands disposed of.

¶39

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Mansoorali D. Shivani and Ors. v. Gulam Ganus Ibrahim Shaikh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansoorali D. Shivani and Ors. v. Gulam Ganus Ibrahim Shaikh and Anr.

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

Stri Shakti Kendra and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. and Vira Travels and Logistics Pvt. Ltd., - Applicants

National Textile Corporation Ltd. ( Western Region). Vs Ramchandra Ballaya Samal.

Himanshu Kumar Sarkar Vs Reliance Infrastructure Limited through Managing Director and Ors.

Sadanand Rajaram Yedwadkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattu @ Ditya Ladkya Valvi and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Munjal Vs M/S. Global Trade Finance Limited and Anr.