Allowed

Shivaji Sopan Jawale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Nov 2016APL/1314/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed a criminal complaint for forgery and cheating charges against the applicant. Quashing was ordered based on an Interlocutory Sale Certificate confirming the debt was settled, the applicant's health condition, and the accomplicitant's no objection.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the criminal complaint filed against the applicant for offences under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC.

Shivaji Sopan Jawale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

APL 1314 of 2014

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1314 OF 2014

¶6

Shivaji Sopan Jawale ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. B.A. Lawate for Applicant Dr. F.R. Shaikh -APP for Respondent No.1 State Mr. Vijay N. Kanthe for Respondent No.2

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & Ms. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

¶11

DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2016

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant,

¶14

the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant.

¶15

2/3

¶16

APL 1314 of 2014

¶17

The application is filed for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the Original Complainant for the offences punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Complainant is present in the Court. He has stated that the accused has paid the entire amount of loan to the Bank. The Applicant has annexed the No Dues Certificate to the application. The Applicant in paragraph 4 of the reply has stated that the Applicant is suffering from hypertension and paralysis on left side and his physical movements are restricted and he is unable to talk properly or to travel from one place to another. He has stated that in view of this fact, the complainant is decided to give his no objection for quashing of the complaint.

¶18

We have interviewed the Complainant and he has produced his identity card and he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the afficavit. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 , we have no hesitation in quashing the complaint. Though the dispute is of a personal nature, the alleged offence of forging the complainant's signature is of a serious nature, however, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and, more

¶19

3/3

¶20

APL 1314 of 2014

¶21

particularly, what is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Complainant, we are inclined to quash the said criminal complaint. Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 13(a) and disposed of.

¶22

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

¶23

Vaishali Tikam

Shivaji Sopan Jawale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Sopan Jawale v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Nitin Anant Kshirsagar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Juhu Citzens Welfare Group and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 14 Ors.

Sanjay Ratan Bhakta Vs the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Jason Nath Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Zabihullah Safiullah Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ketan Gunwantrai Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra