The applicant moved the High Court to quash a charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC. Counsel argued the offence was non-private but sought leave to withdraw, leading to dismissal as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
apl-1300-15.doc
rpa 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1300 OF 2015
Office Notes, Office Memorandam of appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders or directions & Registrar’s orders.
Mr. Prashant G. Sawant, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Manojkumar K. Korambeth i/b. Mr. Shashikant Mandlik, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : A.S. OKA AND P.D. NAIK, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 29, 2016.
P.C.
By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the applicant is seeking quashing of the charge sheet filed against the applicant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the applicant is that forged and fabricated letters of appointment were issued by the applicant to the 3rd respondent and several other persons. The allegation is that the letters were issued purportedly on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal corporation. The letters are allegedly signed by one Shri P. Karande. During the
rpa 2/2 apl-1300-15.doc
investigation, it was found that there is no officer by the said name in the employment of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The prayer for quashing is sought on the basis of the consent of the 3rd respondent to whom one such letter was addressed.
2 According to us, the offence alleged is not private in nature and it has a serious impact on the society. The offence is of a very serious nature. Therefore, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gain Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr1 , the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised in the facts of the case.
3 At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(P.D. NAIK, J.)
(A.S. OKA, J.)
1 2010 (10) SCC 303
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for quashing of the charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC can be entertained when the 3rd respondent consents to the quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gain Singh v. State of Punjab and AnrReferred¶13
Gain Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Applicant
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Respondent No. 3
A.S. Oka
P.D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
