Allowed

Shadaab Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2020WP/332/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by accused challenging revisional order setting aside order under Sec. 203 CrPC dismissed due to criminal complaint under Sec. 500 IPC. Court allowed petition, quashed impugned order, and restored trial order as parties settled matter amicably.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.820/2017 is quashed and set aside; trial order restored.

Shadaab Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

902.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.332/2019

¶5

SHADAAB PATEL ... PETITIONER.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS.

¶8

…….

¶9

Mr.Shadaab Patel present in person.

¶10

Mr.Jayant Bardeskar for petitioner.

¶11

Mr.R.M.Pethe, APP for State.

¶12

Mr.Akhilesh Dubey a/w Mr. Uttam Dubey a/w Mr.Siddhesh Rajput i/b M/s Law Counsellors for Respondent no.2.

¶13

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J. DATE : 22ND JANUARY 2020.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

By this writ petition, the revision petitioner/original

¶16

accused has challenged revisional order dated 4.1.2019 by which the learned revisional Court has set aside order of Chitra Sonawane 1

¶17

902.doc

¶18

learned trial Magistrate dismissing complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶19

During pendency of this petition, compromise has been arrived at and original accused as well as original complainant i.e. son and father have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves. Offence alleged was punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Today an affidavit has been tendered by the petitioner i.e. original complainant stating therein that because of settlement of dispute between him and his son i.e. original accused, he does not want to proceed further in Criminal Case No. C.C.No.1458/SS/2015 under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 46^th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner so also learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/original accused submits that by consent impugned order dated 4.1.2019 passed by learned Additional Chitra Sonawane 2

¶21

902.doc

¶22

Sessions Judge, Bombay in Revision Application No.820/2017 be quashed and set aside thereby restoring order of complaint.

¶23

Affidavit tendered by respondent No.2 Shabbir/original

¶24

complainant is taken on record.

¶25

Parties are present before Court are duly identified by

¶26

their respective parties.

¶27

Considering the fact that compoundable offence is settled

¶28

outside the Court by contesting parties who happens to be father and son, the petition deserves to be allowed with following order.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) Petition is allowed.

¶31

(ii) Impugned order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the

¶32

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, in Criminal

¶33

Chitra Sonawane 3

¶34

902.doc

¶35

Revision Application No.820/2017 between the parties

¶36

is quashed and set aside.

¶37

(iii) Petition is dispose of accordingly.

¶38

Chitra Sonawane 4

Shadaab Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadaab Patel 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

Suvarna Prashant Salve Vs Vimal Pandit Salve and Anr.

Faisal Latif Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gopal Gundu Sutar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shabbir Noor Mohammed Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandramani Matamani Tiwari Vs Gufic Bioscience Ltd. and Anr.

Chandramani Matamani Tiwari Vs Gufic Biosciences Ltd. and Anr.