Dismissed
Shriram Chaturbhuj Parik v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Bombay HCAPPW/29/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
902-APPW-29-2013-WP-2097-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2097 OF 2012
SHRIRAM CHATURBHUJ PARIK )...APPLICANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. )...RESPONDENTS
Mr.Suresh M. Sabrad Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for the State / Respondent No.1.
Mr.Tushar Sonawane Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 23rd JULY, 2013.
P.C. :
1 Heard Mr.Suresh Sabrad, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr.Tushar Sonawane, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2 In the Writ Petition No.2097 of 2012, on 29.8.2012, the parties filed certain consent terms, which were taken into consideration by this court and the petition came to be dismissed on that date. Under
avk 1/2
902-APPW-29-2013-WP-2097-2012
the consent terms, it was inter alia agreed that the petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs.18 Lac towards the full and final settlement in S.C.C.No.318 of 2010, filed by the respondent no.2 herein, against the petitioner. No date for making payment of the said amount was mentioned either in the consent terms or in the order passed by this court on 29.8.2012, dismissing of the writ petition. All that the court did was to stay the prosecution for a period of two months, within which period, the payment was expected to be made. It was agreed as per the consent terms that once the payment is realized, the prosecution would be withdrawn. For a period of two months, the proceedings before the Magistrate were ordered to be stayed.
3 Since no time limit had been fixed for making any payment, the application is misconceived. All that would happen by non-payment is that the stay on the proceedings before the Magistrate shall stand vacated. It would be for the respondent no.2 and the petitioner to decide as to what should be done in the circumstances.
4 It is indicated to me by the counsel for the respondent no.2, that the respondent no.2 is not now ready to settle the matter. If that be so, the proceedings before the Magistrate shall continue in accordance with law.
5 The application, being misconceived, is dismissed.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
avk 2/2
Shriram Chaturbhuj Parik
The State of Maharashtra
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court