Allowed

Rupeshkumar S/O. Chandanmal Bora v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2019APPLN/2802/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal application quashing FIR and related proceedings under IPC 354 and IT Act 67(A). Court held relief necessary after parties settled dispute, respondent filed affidavit showing no opposition, and nature of offence warranted quashing.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 180/2017 and proceedings of RCC No. 1223 of 2017 quashed as prayed in prayer clause (B).

Rupeshkumar S/O. Chandanmal Bora Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 ) criappln2802.19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

945 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2802 OF 2019

¶4

Rupeshkumar s/o Chandanmal Bora, Age : 37 years, Occ : Lawyer, R/o. Gokuldham, Sundarwadi, Near Cambridge High School Square, Jalna Road, Aurangabad

¶5

…. Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through The Inspector, Mukundwadi Police Station, (Investigated by Crime Branch) Aurangabad,

¶8

Rashmi d/o Prakashsing Gour, Age : 36 yrs, Occ : Lawyer, R/o. S-A, Plot No. 53, Cidco N-4, Aurangabad.

¶9

Mr. N. R. Thorat, Advocate for the applicant Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for the respondent/State Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶10

CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE & S M . GAVHANE, JJ. DATED : 03-12-2019

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER T. V. NALAWADE, J.):-

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties for final disposal.

¶13

Present proceeding is filed for relief of quashing of FIR No. 180/2017 registered in Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad for the

¶14

( 2 ) criappln2802.19.odt

¶15

offences punishable under Sections 354(A)(1) and (D) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (A) of the IT Act and also the proceeding of RCC No. 1223 of 2017 pending the before JMFC, Aurangabad. The crime was registered in Mukundwadi Police Station by respondent No. 2.

¶16

During arguments learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that parties have settled the dispute. Affidavit of respondent No. 2 is filed and it shows that she has no objection for quashing of the criminal proceeding. In view of nature of offence and the contentions made in the affidavit by respondent No. 2, this Court holds that relief needs to be given.

¶17

In the result, application is allowed. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (B).

¶18

Rule is made absolutely in those terms.

¶19

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [T. V. NALAWADE, J.]

¶20

ssp/Dec.19/criappln2802.19.odt

Rupeshkumar S/O. Chandanmal Bora v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupeshkumar S/O. Chandanmal Bora 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

Dnyaneshwar S/O. Kachru Tondmal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahesh S/O. Janardhan Gupile and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Datta S/O. Raibhan Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rupee Co. Operative Bank through Its Authorized Officer and Authorized Officer K B Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prakash S/O. Rangnath Gaikwad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nivrutti Haribhau Agale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.