Disposed

Jamnu G. Hundalani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2013WP/753/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings for wrongful restraint arising from a civil dispute over a cooperative society flat. The Court stayed the criminal case pending the disposal of a related chamber summons in an execution matter, instructing the Magistrate not to proceed further.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.80 of 2013 stayed; Magistrate restrained from proceeding until disposal of Chamber Summons No. 1961 of 2009.

Jamnu G. Hundalani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

903.wp.753.13.doc

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 753 OF 2013

¶5

Jamnu G. Hundalani and others. ....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others. ....Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Prakash Naik a/w Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for the Petitioners. Mr. Niranjan Parekh a/w Mr. Dharmpal Dave a/w M. Manasvi Tiwari i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent No. 3. Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, APP for the Respondents-State.

¶10

CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G. S. PATEL, J.J.

¶11

DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2013.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

This Criminal Writ Petition seeks quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.80 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40^th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai arising out of C.R.No.25 of 2012 registered with Malabar Hill Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

There are certain premises at Malabar Hill and what the Petitioners who are arraigned as an accused in the criminal case urge is that the Petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman, the Petitioner No. 2 is

1 of 4

903.wp.753.13.doc

Shephali

the Secretary and the Petitioner No. 3 is a committee member of Ishwar Bhavan Co.operative Housing Society Ltd, situate at Little Gibbs road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai 400 006. It is a registered cooperative housing society and one flat bearing No. 3-A, 3^rd floor is claimed by the Complainant. We need not enter into this controversy because what is essentially alleged is that the on going civil dispute in relation to this flat apart, no order of this Court and much less of directing the parties to maintain status-quo could have been construed by the Petitioners/Original Accused as enabling them to place a restraint on the Complainant entering and occupying the subject flat. That they have restrained him from entering the premises of the society and accessing the flat amounts to wrongful restraint within the meaning of Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶19

The Complainant's Advocate Mr. Parekh has placed before us a copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and it, according to him, clarifies the position. Therefore, his argument is that there was never any confusion and the status-quo order could not have been construed in the manner done by the Petitioners. With the clarification now given, the matter is all the more clear.

2 of 4

903.wp.753.13.doc

Shephali

Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners took instructions from the Petitioners on this order of a learned Single Judge of this Court and after taking instructions from them, clarified that the Petitioners never intended to object to the user of the premises or occupation by the Complainant leave alone obstructing him or the contractors, agents, servants employed by him from entering the premises and maintaining and repairing them.

¶24

We find that there are disputes between the parties, which are pending before the Civil Court and on account of which and the orders made therein, the Petitioners had taken, prima facie, this stand but, after some arguments before us and, the Petitioners having clarified their position, it would be in the larger interest of justice that the proceedings in the criminal case are stayed till the hearing of Chamber Summons being Chamber Summons No. 1961 of 2009 in Execution Application No. 197 of 2004, pending before this Court.

¶25

We dispose of this Petition, therefore, by keeping open all contentions and expressing no opinion thereon but directing the concerned Magistrate not to proceed with Criminal Case No. 80 of 2013 until disposal of Chamber Summons No. 1961 of 2009 in Execution Application No. 197 of 2004 in Arbitration Case No. 202 of

3 of 4

903.wp.753.13.doc

Shephali

It is agreed by Mr. Parekh as also by Mr. Naik that this Chamber summons is not disposed of finally and is yet pending.

¶30

In these circumstances purely to enable the parties to assert their respective stands in the pending civil proceedings and not to precipitate the matter until then, we have restrained the learned Magistrate from proceeding further. Our order should not be construed as a direction to quash the criminal proceedings on the file or observing that no prima facie case of commission of a cognizable offence is disclosed on a reading of the complaint in question.

¶31

Needless to clarify that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides not only in the criminal but all pending civil proceedings.

¶32

A copy of the order dated 7th March, 2013 passed by the learned Singly Judge of this Court (Coram: S. J. Kathawalla, J) is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The Writ Petition is disposed off on the above terms.

¶33

4 of 4

Jamnu G. Hundalani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamnu G. Hundalani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Protection of Rights Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hussain Lal Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sultansingh Kudansingh Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sarath Gopinathan Manari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohamed Ashraf Mohamed Aslam Azmi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Harishchandra Vithoba Kolpate Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.