Allowed

Ashok Shivram Karde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Jul 2013APPLN/2563/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners and applicants, all advocates practising in the same court, filed mutual criminal complaints against each other. The High Court, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the FIRs noting the amicable settlement and desire to preserve professional dignity.

What did the court decide?

Crime/FIRs No.I-66/2013 and No.II-18/2013 registered at Police Station, Gangapur under various sections of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside.

Ashok Shivram Karde Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 crwp 400/13 & A 2563/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.400 of 2013

¶4

Miss Vinaya Shrikant Bansod, Age 24 years, Occupation : Advocate, R/o Jamgaon, Post Raghunathnagar, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad.

¶5

Ramakant S/o Dhondopant Bansod, Age 42 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Gangapur, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad.

¶6

Shivprasad S/o Shrikant Bansod, Age 28 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Jamgaon, Post Raghunathnagar, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad.

¶7

Shrikant S/o Mohanrao Bansod, Age 40 years, Occupation : Stamp Vendor, R/o Jamgaon, Post Raghunathnagar, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad.

¶8

Vijay S/o Dhondopant Bansod, Age 40 years, R/o Gangapur, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioners.

¶9

Versus

¶10

2 crwp 400/13 & A 2563/13

¶11

The State of Maharashtra. 2) The P.S.I., Gangapur Police Station, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 3) Ashok Karde, Age 32 years, Occupation: Advocate, R/o Gangapur, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶12

Shri. Mobin Shaikh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Shri. S.G. Nandedkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶14

WITH

¶15

Criminal Application No.2563 of 2013

¶16

Ashok Shivram Karde, Age 32 years, Occupation: Legal Practitioner, R/o Lasurnaka, Gangapur, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. ... Applicant. Versus

¶17

1. The State of Maharashtra, 2) The Police Station In charge Gangapur Police Station, Taluka Gangapur.

¶18

3 crwp 400/13 & A 2563/13 3) Vinaya d/o Shrikant Bansod, Age 25 years, Occupation :Legal Practitioner, R/o Jamgaon, Post Raghunathnagar, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. ... Respondents.

¶19

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 17^th JULY 2013

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Naresh H Patil, J.)

¶21

1. Heard.

¶22

1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally.

¶23

The petitioners in both these petitions are practising Advocates in the Court at Gangapur, District Aurangabad. Both petitioners filed criminal complaints to Police Station, Gangapur, against each other which came to be registered as Crime/FIR No.I-66/2013 under sections 143,147,149,294,384,504,506 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime/FIR No.II 18/2013 under sections 509, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

4 crwp 400/13 & A 2563/13

¶25

Both the petitioners have filed affidavits and expressed desire to get these complaints quashed as they have settled the matter amicably.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submit that being Members of legal profession it would not be reasonable and proper to pursue such complaints filed by the petitioners against each other. Whatever misunderstanding was there has been now sorted out. The petitioners wish to carry on in the profession maintaining its dignity and decorum.

¶27

We have perused the complaints filed by the petitioners against each other and the affidavits filed. Both the petitioners are practising in the same Court.

¶28

We are more concerned and disturbed to notice that members of the legal fraternity practising in the same Court have complained against each other. The matter has gone upto police station. Such instances ought to have been avoided. The petitioners could have taken assistance/ help of senior members or the members of the Association. The petitioners could have sought guidance

¶29

5 crwp 400/13 & A 2563/13

¶30

from responsible persons before resorting to filing complaints.

¶31

Considering the facts & circumstances and the request made by the petitioners we find it appropriate to exercise our inherent jurisdiction conferred under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the complaints.

¶32

Criminal Writ Petition No.400 of 2013 and Criminal Application No.2563 of 2013 are allowed. Crime/FIR No.I-66/2013 under sections 143,147,149,294, 384,504,506 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime/FIR No.II-18/2013 under sections 509, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Gangapur are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶33

Sd/- Sd/- (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶34

rsl

Ashok Shivram Karde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Shivram Karde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Limbaji Raghunath Salgar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javed Raju Pathan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ajit Lakhamichand Bothra Vs Mangala Sharad Mutha and Ors.

Baburao Dattoji Kendre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinaya Shrikant Bansod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajaram Shripati Banduke, C.No. 7147 Vs the State of Mah