Quashed

Rajkumar Krishanchand Bawa @ Sharma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2020WP/429/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed proceedings in a criminal case where parties requested withdrawal to maintain cordial relations. Parties directed to pay Rs.20,000 each to Police Welfare Fund as a condition for granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of Rs.20,000 each to Police Welfare Fund within 4 weeks.

Rajkumar Krishanchand Bawa @ Sharma and Anr. Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

rsk

¶2

59-WP-429-20.doc

¶3

1 / 2

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.429 OF 2020

¶6

Rajkumar Krishanchand Bawa @ Sharma and Anr....Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Akhilesh Singh for the Petitioners.
Mr.Krishnanand Mishra for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S. R. Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶11

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI,
 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE &
 N. R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 3/3/2020.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

.Petitioners are present with their advocates. Respondent No.2
is present with her advocate.

¶14

2.Learned APP appears for the State. He has objection to any
intervention by this Court.

¶15

3.We have perused the report on the basis of which offence
under section 420, 406, 354, 506, 509 read with 34 of IPC and sections 33
and 36 of the Indian Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 is registered.

¶16

4.Parties orally also request for setting aside of the same as they
are neighbours and wish to continue to have cordial relations.

¶17

5.Learned APP has invited our attention to statement made on

¶18

rsk

¶19

59-WP-429-20.doc

¶20

2 / 2

¶21

affidavit by respondent No.2 that contents of FIR were never explained to
her. Thus she is disowning the statement.

¶22

6.We have heard respective learned counsel. Taking over all view
of the matter, we are inclined to intervene in extraordinary jurisdiction.
However, as public time and money has been lost, we direct the parties to
pay amount of Rs.20,000/- each to respondent No.1 State that is Police
Welfare Fund of the State of Maharashtra within a period of 4 weeks from
today.

¶23

7.Subject to said payment, we make Rule absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a).

¶24

(N. R. BORKAR, J.)

¶25

 (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Rajkumar Krishanchand Bawa @ Sharma and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Krishanchand Bawa @ Sharma and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattatray Pandurang Kedar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhushan Dattatray Kedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lalit Chopra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shrishail Chandram Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Gulabrao Pol Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandar Armogam Naykar @ Ganesh Mani Kondiram Vs the State of Maharashtra