Allowed

Hiral Jayanti Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2016WP/2255/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition to quash criminal charges of theft under Section 379 IPC. The court held that since the offence is compoundable and the victim (second respondent) filed an affidavit expressing willingness to compound, the petition succeeds.

What did the court decide?

The Court case being C.C.No.1962/PW/2008 pending on the file of Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, is quashed.

Hiral Jayanti Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2016)

crwp2255

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.2255 OF 2016

¶6

Miss Hiral Jayanti Sharma
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and others

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Ms Tahera Abdul Rashid Qureshi for the Petitioner
Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for the respondent No.1
Ms Saima Ansari for respondent No.2

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : AUGUST 20, 2016

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

¶13

1Rule. The learned APP waives service for the
first respondent. The learned counsel for the
second respondent waives service. Forthwith taken up
for hearing.

¶14

2Though the FIR refers to the commission of
offence under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code
by the present petitioner, in the charge sheet which
is subject matter of challenge in this petition, it
is stated that the same is filed for the offence
punishable under section 379 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

3As per the table appended to sub-section 1 of
section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
the offence of theft under section 379 is a

¶16

2 crwp2255

¶17

compoundable offence at the instance of the person
who is the owner of the alleged stolen property. In
the present case, the second respondent is the owner
of the stolen property namely the cell phones. The
second respondent by filing an affidavit has shown
willingness to compound the offence as recorded in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit. Therefore, the
petition must succeed.

¶18

4Hence, we pass the following order :

¶19

(I) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a) which reads thus:

¶20

“(a)To quash the Court case being
C.C.No.1962/PW/2008 pending on the file of
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th
Court, Borivali, Mumbai for offences
punishable under section 379 of Cr.P.C
registered by the Malad Police Station on
23.10.2006 on the complaint of one Mr.Ayub
Khan, the 2ndrespondent herein in the
interest of justice.”

¶21

(II) All concerned to act upon an
authenticated copy of this Judgment and
order.

¶22

(A.A.SAYED,J.)

Hiral Jayanti Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiral Jayanti Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemraj Gangasai Bhakiya Vs Bindia Kripalani and Anr.

The Registrar General, High Court Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Ntc Industries Limited Vs Itc Limited

Kunal Ganesh Padmakar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Noor Mohammed Suvarnadurgkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Latif Ibrahim Mahaldar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.