Dismissed

Chandulal Mohamad Shekh v. Jahangir Kadarsaheb Maner and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2012WP/413/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses three writ petitions challenging the issuance of criminal process under section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. The court held that the petitioner's contradictory explanations regarding a nominal sale agreement and lack of receipt for the earnest money did not establish error by the Sessions Judge. Dispute between parties does not warrant quashing criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; writs held to lack merit.

Chandulal Mohamad Shekh Vs Jahangir Kadarsaheb… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

vrd 1 WP413/11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.413 OF 2011

¶5

Shri Chandulal M. Sheth v/s

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Shri Jahangir K. Maner and anr. ...Respondents

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.414 OF 2011

¶9

Shri Chandulal M. Sheth v/s

¶10

Shri Parvez Mohamed Mea Maner and others

...Petitioner

...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.451 OF 2011

¶15

Shri Chandulal M. Sheth v/s

¶16

...Petitioner

¶17

Shri Mohamad Isak Maner and others ...Respondents

¶18

Ms Nikita Trivedi i/b M/s YKS Legal for Petitioner. Ms A. Pise with Mr P.D. Pise for Respondent No.1. Mr S.A. Shaikh, APP for State.

¶19

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶20

DATED : 26TH JULY 2012.

¶21

P.C. :-

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

vrd 2 WP413/11

¶24

extensively. Issuance of process for an offence

¶25

under section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. is questioned. Same was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in three criminal revision applications and by order dated 14^th January 2011 the learned Sessions Judge accepted the revisions partly to the extent of Vahidali Shabbir Bidagi, however it did not exonerate Chandulal M. Sheth. Hence the writ petitions.

¶26

The learned counsel for accused petitioner

¶27

submits that the learned Sessions Judge should have considered the report furnished by the Police Head Constable of Jath Police Station wherein he has pointed about agreement of sale being unregistered and there was no receipt of payment of Rs.50,000/-.

¶28

The documents illustrate that the accused applicant Chandulal M. Sheth has agreed to sell plots of ram land bearing survey No.518, Hissa No.2, situated at Jath and on 13^th September 2002 collected Rs.50,000/- as an earnest and executed

¶29

vrd 3 WP413/11

¶30

agreement of sale. The witnesses are Sikandar H.

¶31

Makandar and Appasaheb Ramu Koli. Witnesses have

¶32

said that there was controversy between the

¶33

complainant and accused (writ petitioner). The

¶34

stand of the petitioner is that the sale agreement

¶35

was nominal and therefore under the lawful

¶36

authority, he has subsequently sold the property to others.

¶37

petitioner is demonstrated. At one stage he says

¶38

that he has not received consideration, at another stage he says that it was a nominal agreement. Both

¶39

the Courts have not committed any error in the orders impugned. Writ petitions lack merits, dismissed.

Chandulal Mohamad Shekh v. Jahangir Kadarsaheb Maner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandulal Mohamad Shekh v. Jahangir Kadarsaheb Maner 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

Sharad Ananda Kiragath Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay @ Kalu Rambhay Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaywant Anandrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandulal Mohamad Shekh Vs Parvez Mohamad Maner and Anr.

Chandulal Mohamad Shekh Vs Mohamad Isak Maner Adn Anr.

Swejit Pandit Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra