Allowed

The Ashuthosh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2019APL/238/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash private proceedings against a housing society. The court set aside the complaint and summons after four years, noting that the water leakage issue was resolved, with a direction to address any future recurrence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application allowed; private complaint No. 42029831/SS/2014, summons, and proceedings quashed and set aside. Direction to take steps if future leakage occurs.

The Ashuthosh Co-Operative Housing Society… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

12.APL238_2017.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 238 OF 2017

¶5

The Ashutosh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. … Applicants

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Karansingh B. Rajput, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP for respondent No. 1/State. Mrs. Anamika Malhotra a/w. Kunal Waghmare, Advocate for respondent No. 2/MCGM.

¶9

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 14^th January, 2019

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This Criminal Application is filed under section 482 of Cr. P.C. seeking orders to set aside the private complaint bearing No. 42029831/SS/2014 which is pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, 42^nd Court, Shindewadi, Mumbai for the offences punishable under section 381 r/w. 471 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. The respondent-Corporation has issued notice dated 10^th June, 2014 to all the three applicants and the owner of Flat No. 44 for leakage and seepage of water.

¶12

Applicant No. 1 is a Cooperative Housing Society. Applicant

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

12.APL238_2017.doc

¶15

No. 2 is the Chairman and Applicant No. 2 is the associates member of the Society. The complaint was filed on 7^th August, 2014 pursuant to the notice and process was issued under the relevant section. This Application is moved by the criminal parties.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that the incident of leakage and seepage from Flat No. 44 to Flat No. 34 of the Society was observed by D-Ward officers of the Corporation in May and June, 2014. Now that flat is repaired and there is no seepage or leakage from Flat No. 44 to Flat No. 34. The owner of Flat No. 34 is no more.

¶17

The learned counsel for the Corporation does not controvert the position, as there is no report of any BMC officer of the visit. She submits to the order of the Court.

¶18

In view of the submissions and as four years have passed from the date of the notice and the complaint and accepting the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused, on instructions, that seepage and leakage from Flat No. 44 to Flat No. 34 is stopped, nothing survives in this

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

12.APL238_2017.doc

¶21

Application and it can be disposed of with the following order:

¶22

(i) Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a);

¶23

(ii) The proceedings in the private complaint No. 42029831/SS/2014 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 42^nd Court, Shindewadi, Mumbai is quashed and set aside;

¶24

(iii) Summons issued are quashed and set aside;

¶25

(iv) If in future, there is any seepage or leakage from Flat No. 44 to Flat No. 34, the applicants alongwith the owner or occupier of Flat no. 44, shall take necessary steps.

¶26

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

The Ashuthosh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Ashuthosh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priti Prashant Bhingade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Bansal Properties through Its Partner Gangabhishan Barumal Agarwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prabhu Industries Prop. Shobha Shankar Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra S/O Eknath Kumavat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maya Ajit Satam Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bapu Shantaram Satam Vs Union of India and Ors.