Allowed

Mahesh Havewalla v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2016APL/1438/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal applications filed by Dilip Singh Rajput and Mahesh Havewalla were disposed of by the Bombay High Court. The court allowed the quashing of complaints initiated by both applicants against each other involving an allegation of a civil dispute over an Audi car sale.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal complaints were quashed under the relevant criminal procedure code provision, and the seized Audi car was ordered to be returned to Dilip Singh Rajput.

Mahesh Havewalla Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

APL/1437/2016

BDPPS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1437 PF 2016

Dilip Singh Rajput

….. Applicant.

V/s

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …... Respondents.

¶9

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1438 OF 2016

¶10

Mahesh Havewalla ….. Applicant.

¶11

V/s

¶12

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. …... Respondents.

¶13

Mr. Tapan Thatte for Applicant in APL/1437/2016 and for Respondent No.2 in APL/1438/2016.

¶14

Mrs. S.V. Sonawane, APP for Respondent/State in APL/1437/2016.

¶15

Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for Respondent/State in APL/1438/2016.

¶16

Ms. Nikita Bhavsar for Respondent No.2 in APL/1437/2016 and for Applicant in APL/1438/2016. ----

¶17

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

¶18

DATE: 19th December, 2016

2/3

APL/1437/2016

P.C.:-

1] Both these applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order.

¶23

2] Applicants had filed complaints against each other. Respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No.1437 of 2016 has filed complaint against the Applicant – Dilip Singh Rajput for the offence punishable under sections 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Respondent No.2 in Criminal Application No. 1438 of 2016 has filed complaint against the Applicant – Mahesh Havewalla for the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

3] It is submitted that there was some dispute regarding payment of certain amount in respect of transaction of sale of Audi Car between the parties. On account of the said dispute, these complaints were filed by the respective Applicant. Both have now filed an affidavit stating therein that they have no objection if the complaints are quashed. Both the applicants are present in Court. They have stated that they have no objection if the complaints filed by them against each other are quashed.

¶25

4] We are satisfied that dispute between the parties, essentially, is of a civil nature and, as such, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another¹ there is no impediment in quashing both these complaints.

1 (2014) 6 SCC 466

3/3

APL/1437/2016

5] Both these Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the respective application. The Audi Car which is seized by the Police shall be returned to the Applicant – Dilip Singh Rajput.

¶30

6] Both these applications are accordingly disposed of.

¶31

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

Mahesh Havewalla v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Havewalla 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

Sagar Shivaji Tambe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Shashikant Atmaram Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rutuja Gadkari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Singh Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Irshad Mohd Rafiq Lakadiya and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.