Allowed

Dharampal Alias Kamal Aasosingh Sonegara v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2014APL/905/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application sought quashing of a criminal complaint under Section 408 IPC for alleged misappropriation of gold ornaments. The complainant conceded the offence is compoundable and returned the ornaments, consenting to quashing but requiring costs.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; ordered applicant to pay Rs.15,000 to Tata Cancer Research Institute within four weeks and then dispose of the matter.

Dharampal Alias Kamal Aasosingh Sonegara Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

suresh

¶2

909-APL-905.2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL
APPLICATION NO.905 OF 2014

¶4

`Dharampal`	`alias Kamal`
`Aasosingh`	`Sonegara`	`.... Applicant`
`Vs.`
`The State`	`of Maharashtra`
`& Another`		`.... Respondents`

¶5

Mr. R.V. Tiwari for the Applicant.
Ms M.H. Mhatre, APP, for the State.
Mr. Amarendra Mishra for Respondent No.2.

¶6

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

¶7

DATED: OCTOBER 10, 2014

¶8

P.C:

¶9

1.Heard learned counsel appearing on

¶10

behalf of the applicant, learned counsel

¶11

appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and also
learned APP for the State.

¶12

2.This application is filed for quashing

¶13

of a criminal complaint filed by respondent

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

suresh 909-APL-905.2014

¶16

No.2 against the applicant for offence

¶17

punishable under Section 408 of the IPC, which
has been registered with Borivali Police
Station, Mumbai vide C.R. No.352 of 2012. It is
the case of respondent No.2-complainant that
the applicant was working with him and he had
handed over some gold ornaments which were to
be delivered at Kerala. However, instead of
delivering the said gold ornaments at Kerala,
itisallegedthattheapplicant
misappropriated the same and therefore
complaint was filed by respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 is present in the Court. He has
filed his affidavit stating therein that now

¶18

the gold ornaments have been returned and
therefore he has no objection if the complaint
is quashed. It is not in dispute that offence
under Section 408 is a compoundable offence.
That being the case, there is no impediment in

¶19

quashingthecriminalcomplaint.The

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

suresh 909-APL-905.2014

¶22

application is accordingly allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a), subject to costs of
Rs.15,000/-, to be paid by the applicant to
Tata Cancer Research Institute, Mumbai within
four weeks. The applicant to inform this Court
about compliance of the above said direction
after four weeks. The application is disposed
of in the aforesaid terms.

Dharampal Alias Kamal Aasosingh Sonegara v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharampal Alias Kamal Aasosingh Sonegara 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

Ram Sagar Prasad Sinha and Anr. Vs CBI Acb and Anr.

Sajid Hisamuddin Birwadkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Rehman Mohammed Hussain Banegar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maheshsingh N. Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pankaj Ramnaresh Saraf (Intervener) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Rajesh Baijnath Chaurasia Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board and 5 Ors.