Dismissed

Vijay Sadu Parle @ Aba Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2014APL/852/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay declined to quash a criminal complaint filed under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The court held that the injuries were of a serious nature, indicating a dispute not of a personal character, despite the respondent's lack of objection.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaint was not quashed. The applicant was allowed to file an application for discharge in the trial court.

Vijay Sadu Parle @ Aba Patil Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

suresh

¶2

27-APL-852.2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL
APPLICATION NO.852 OF 2014

¶4

Vijay Sadu Parle @ Aba Patil.... Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr..... Respondents

¶5

Mr. P.G. Sarda for the Applicant.
Ms M.M. Deshmukh, APP, for the State.
Mr. A.N. Gosavi for Respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM: V.M. KANADE &
 P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶7

DATED: SEPTEMBER 02, 2014

¶8

P.C:

¶9

1.Heard the learned counsel appearing on

¶10

behalf of the applicant. This application is
filed for quashing of a criminal complaint
filed at the instance of respondent No.2 for

¶11

offence punishable under Section 326 r/w

¶12

Section 34 of the IPC.

¶13

2.We have perused the FIR. We are of the

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

suresh 27-APL-852.2014

¶16

view that the injuries inflicted by the accused
prima facie appear to be of serious nature and,
therefore, it cannot be said that dispute
between the parties was of a personal nature
and as such, therefore, we are not inclined to
quash the complaint, even though respondent
No.2 has filed his affidavit stating therein
that he has no objection if the complaint is
quashed. The applicant, however, is at liberty
to file an application for discharge in the
trial Court. If such an application is filed,
the trial Court shall decide the same on its

¶17

own merit and in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by the observations made in this
order. The application shall be decided as
expeditiously as possible and in any case,
within twelve weeks from the date of filing of
such application. With these observations, the

¶18

petition is disposed of.

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Vijay Sadu Parle @ Aba Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Sadu Parle @ Aba Patil v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Shivaji University Teachers Association (Suta) Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Ramesh Amidas Mehta and Ors. Vs the State of Maharahtra and Ors.

Ayodhya Babulal Malu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Principal District and Session Judge Solapur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravin Yashwant Darekar and Ors. Vs Vasantrao Deshmukh and Anr.

The Principal District and Session Judge Solapur Vs the State of Maharashtra