High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging the issuance of summons for cheating, holding that courts made no error in impugned orders despite arguments regarding nominal agreement.
Writ petitions dismissed; issuance of process upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vrd 1 WP413/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.413 OF 2011
Shri Chandulal M. Sheth v/s
...Petitioner
Shri Jahangir K. Maner and anr. ...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.414 OF 2011
Shri Chandulal M. Sheth v/s
Shri Parvez Mohamed Mea Maner and others
...Petitioner
...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.451 OF 2011
Shri Chandulal M. Sheth v/s
...Petitioner
Shri Mohamad Isak Maner and others ...Respondents
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.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.
DATED : 26TH JULY 2012.
P.C. :-
vrd 2 WP413/11
extensively. Issuance of process for an offence
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 14th 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.
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/-.
vrd 3 WP413/11
agreement of sale. The witnesses are Sikandar H.
Makandar and Appasaheb Ramu Koli. Witnesses have
said that there was controversy between the
complainant and accused (writ petitioner). The
stand of the petitioner is that the sale agreement
was nominal and therefore under the lawful
authority, he has subsequently sold the property to others.
petitioner is demonstrated. At one stage he says
that he has not received consideration, at another stage he says that it was a nominal agreement. Both
the Courts have not committed any error in the orders impugned. Writ petitions lack merits, dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the issuance of process under section 420 read with section 34 I.P.C. should be quashed on the grounds of disputed consideration and unregistered sale agreement.
The Sessions Judge did not exonerate the petitioner despite revisions; should the High Court quash the proceedings?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Chandulal M. Sheth
Shri Jahangir K. Maner
Shri Parvez Mohamed Mea Maner
Shri Mohamad Isak Maner
K.U. Chandiwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
