Dismissed

Deepak Subhaschandra Jain v. Amit Suresh Lohakare and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2013APL/424/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal application challenging a trial court order that issued process and directed the return of a vehicle. The court found clear allegations of snatching and misuse of a vehicle, holding that the complaint disclosed an offence under Section 379 IPC and did not amount to abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Application was dismissed, affirming the trial court's order to issue process and return the vehicle under Section 379 IPC.

Deepak Subhaschandra Jain Vs Amit Suresh Lohakare and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

APL-424-12.sxw

¶2

Dixit

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.424 OF 2012

¶5

Deepak Subhashchandra Jain V/s.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Amit Suresh Lohakare & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Keshav Borhade for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr. Avinash Avhad for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P., for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶12

DATE : 8 TH APRIL, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard Mr. Borhade, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant.

¶15

There is neither any substance in the contention that the complaint does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, nor that the vehicle could have been returned to the Respondent No.1/Original Complainant on the conditions, as are imposed by the Trial Court.

¶16

There are clear allegations which point to the act of the Applicant in threatening the Driver of the vehicle of the Respondent No.1/Original Complainant and forcibly taking away the vehicle from his custody and possession and, secondly, finding that the documents, which are produced by the Respondent No.1/Original Complainant, show that the vehicle was in the custody and possession of Respondent No.1/Original Complainant and he was

¶17

1/2

¶18

APL-424-12.sxw

¶19

using it, that the Trial Court has, on reasonable conditions, released the vehicle in favour of the Respondent No.1/Original Complainant.

¶20

Both the orders, namely, issuing process and directing return of property to the Respondent No.1/Original Complainant do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in my revisional jurisdiction. Equally, the order issuing process need not be interfered with in my inherent jurisdiction as the complaint discloses commission of an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, which cannot be termed as an abuse of the process of the Court either.

¶21

Hence, this Criminal Application is dismissed.

¶22

2/2

Deepak Subhaschandra Jain v. Amit Suresh Lohakare and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Subhaschandra Jain v. Amit Suresh Lohakare 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

Smtia Suhas Rhurkar Vs Prakash Sumant Chimburkar and Anr.

Manohar Keval Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arvind Vijeta Mittal and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Situ Ramnath Shastri Vs M/S. K. Vishal Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Santosh Maruti Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Umesh Ramesh Brid Vs the State of Maharashtra