Allowed

Ajit Kumar S/O. Yogendra Prasad Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Sept 2014WP/3798/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition for quashing a criminal complaint lodged between brothers for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. The parties had settled the dispute amicably. Relied on Narinder Singh & Others, the complaint was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaint was allowed to be quashed. The brothers were directed to pay costs to the Tata Cancer Research Center.

Ajit Kumar S/O. Yogendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

913-wp-3798-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3798 OF 2014

¶4

Ajit s/o. Yogendra Prasad Singh ...Petitioner
vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. A.M. Saraogi, for the Petitioner
Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P., for the State.
Ms. Ivy Jecob Tauro, for Respondent No.2.

¶7

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

¶8

DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. This petition is filed for quashing of the

¶11

criminal complaint filed by respondent No.2 vide

¶12

C.R.No.342 of 2013 for the offences punishable
under sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with
section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶13

2.The petitioner and the complainant-

¶14

respondent No.2 are brothers and they have now
settled the dispute amicably and therefore

1/2

Vishal Parekar

913-wp-3798-2014

respondent No.2 has no objection if the complaint
has been quashed. Respondent No.2 is present in
the Court and he has reiterated the same facts
which he has stated in his affidavit in reply.

¶19

impediment in quashing the complaint since the
dispute appears to be of a family dispute. The

¶20

ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “ Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (2014 AIR SCW 2065)” would squarely

¶21

apply to the facts of the present case. The
petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) and disposed of.

¶22

4. Both the brothers shall pay cost of Rs.
15,000/- each to the Tata Cancer Research Center
within four weeks.

¶23

Vishal Parekar

Ajit Kumar S/O. Yogendra Prasad Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar S/O. Yogendra Prasad Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Retd. Acp-Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev Vs I. H. Shahdiwan

Sigrun Realties Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shailendra Dixit S/O. Prabhakar Dixit Vs Shri Amitabh Rajan Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.

Dr. Piyush T. Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Mahadev Kande Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Association of Management of Unaided Pvt. Medical and Dental Collelge of Maharashtra Vs the State of Maharashtra