Dismissed

Suresh Badrinath Zawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC19 Sept 2013WP/161/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, petitioners sought to quash proceedings under Section 408 IPC. Upon hearing, the court noted a settlement was reached. The court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the writ, dismissed the petition, and directed the return of deposit with liberty to compound the offence before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed; liberty to apply for compounding; deposit to be returned.

Suresh Badrinath Zawar and Others Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.W.P.161.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 161 OF 2013

¶5

Suresh Badrinath Zawar and others.

¶6

.. PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and another.

¶9

.. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Patil Vinod Prakash APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. P.N. Muley Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Pradhan S.A.

¶11

CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: September 19, 2013

¶12

ORAL ORDER :-

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard the learned A.P.P. for State i.e. the respondent no.1.

¶14

The petitioners, who are some of the accused in R.C.C. No. 303/2012 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings against them after being unsuccessful in getting the proceedings quashed in revision application filed before the Court of Sessions.

¶15

Cri.W.P.161.13.odt

¶16

¶17

During the pendency of the present petition, the parties apparently have arrived at some settlement. The prosecution, which the petitioners are facing, is in respect of offence punishable under Section 408 of Indial Penal Code, which can be compounded with the permission of the trial Court.

¶18

When this aspect of the matter is discussed, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the Petition stating that the petitioners would file an appropriate application for compounding the offence before the trial Court.

¶19

The Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as such, with liberty to the petitioners to apply for compounding of the offence in question by making an appropriate application before the trial Court.

¶20

The amount deposited by the petitioners in this Court, pursuant to the interim orders passed during the pendency of the present Petition, be handed over back to the petitioners.

¶21

The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

( A.M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶23

¶24

sga/-

Suresh Badrinath Zawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Badrinath Zawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Bhivsen Deoram Kandekar Vs Arun B Bhalsingh and Anr.

Bhivsen Deoram Kandekar Vs Shri Rajiv Gandhi Sahakari Nagari Path Sanstha Maryadit and Ors.

Santosh Ghanshyam Ghungarrao Vs Sudarshan @ Barku Dhondiba Suryawanshi and Ors.

Rajesh Chandmal Varma Vs Mahalaxmi Silver

Sachin Mahadeo Vaidya and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shaikh Junaid Shaikh Badar Vs Shirin Begum Ibrahim Khan