Allowed

Panjabrao Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2016APL/1289/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed and disposed of a Criminal Application seeking to quash an FIR related to IPC offences arising from a family property dispute. Noting that the dispute is now settled between the same family members amicable settlement has been found to be of civil nature. Relying on Narinder Singh, Court allowed and disposed of application.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses and is disposed of.

Panjabrao Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

1/2

APL 1289 of 2016

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1289 OF 2016

¶7

Shri Panjabrao Vasantao Sinde & Ors. ….Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra through Hinjewadi Police Station and Ors. ….Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni and Mr. Rahul Garg for Applicants Dr. F.R. Shaikh -APP for Respondent -State Mr. Milind Deshmukh for Respondent No.2 ******

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶11

Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

¶12

DATE : DECEMBER 2, 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

This application is filed by the Applicant for quashing the criminal complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the Court of Joint Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pune. There was a dispute between the Applicant and Respondent No.2 in respect of the ancestral property. The parties have now amicably settled the dispute.

¶15

Respondent No.2- Original Complainant has filed an affidavit

¶16

2/2 APL 1289 of 2016

¶17

stating therein that he has no objection if the complaint is quashed.

¶18

There is no manner of doubt that the dispute is essentially and basically is of civil nature arising out of the property between the same family members. The ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It appears that this is a second application for quashing. The first application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Hence, this application is not barred by principle of res-judicata since the first application was not decided on merits. Moreover, the dispute is settled by consent of the parties. All the parties are present in the Court. Hence, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and is disposed of.

¶19

Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶20

Vaishali Tikam

Panjabrao Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panjabrao Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. 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

Dejul Manilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jasdeep Singh Khurana and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harminder Balbir Singh Saini and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manteshwar Hanumantrao Kattimani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Karamatullah Rahmatullah Khan Alias Raju Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.