Dismissed

Prakash Tarachand Chopada Died through Lrs Pankaj S/O. Prakash Chopada v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Nov 2021WP/368/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition challenging the order of discharge of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissal of revision, the High Court found the evidence insufficient. Noting the accused were absent from agreements and no evidence proved their membership in the firm, the court declined interference and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed as no interference is called for.

Prakash Tarachand Chopada Died through Lrs Pankaj S/O… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

( 1 ) crwp368.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

925 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.368 OF 2019

¶4

PRAKASH TARACHAND CHOPADA DIED THROUGH LRS PANKAJ S/O.
PRAKASH CHOPADA
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Mrs.Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.P. Sonpawale, APP for the respondent/State.
Mr.N.S. Muthiyan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶7

CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J.
DATED :25.11.2021

¶8

PC :-

¶9

01.The father of the petitioner, who died on
19.12.2008, has filed complaint case (RCC No.124 of 1992)
against respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with other co-
accused for the offence punishable under sections 420
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After

¶10

recording the evidence before charge, the learned
Magistrate had discharged respondent Nos.2 and 3 by order
dated 05.06.2015. The revision petition was filed
against said order of the learned Magistrate dated

¶11

05.06.2015. By order dated 16.10.2018, the learned

¶12

revisional Court dismissed the revision petition. Both
these orders are impugned in this petition.

¶13

02.I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner,
and learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶14

03.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

¶15

that respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with other co-accused
portrayed to the original complainant that they are the

¶16

partners of partnership firm, namely, Vardhman
Development Corporation. It is submitted that they with
intention to deceive the complainant and the witnesses
offered to sell certain plots to them with an assurance
that the plots would fetch huge price within a short span
of time. It is submitted that they induced the
complainant and the witnesses to purchase 45 plots,
though at the time of executing agreements to sell, they
were not having title to the said property. It is
submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 with other co-

¶17

accused were also aware that the competent authority
would never allow the property in question for
residential purpose as the said property was already
reserved for industrial purpose. It is submitted that
in-spite of agreement to sell in favour of the
complainant and the witnesses, very same plots were sold
to third party. It is submitted that in such
circumstances the learned Trial Court was not justified
in discharging respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶18

04.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for

¶19

respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that respondent Nos.2
and 3 were never partners of partnership firm, namely,
Vardhman Development Corporation. It is submitted that
admittedly, the alleged agreements to sell do not bear
signatures of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is submitted
that there is no evidence on record to infer that
respondent Nos.2 and 3 were partners of partnership firm
– Vardhman Development Corporation. It is submitted that
the Trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances,

¶20

was justified in discharging respondent Nos.2 and 3 from
the alleged offences.

¶21

05.The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence
recorded before the charge, has concluded that the
evidence on record is not sufficient to frame charge
against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the offences alleged
against them. The revisional Court after hearing the
parties concurred with the said conclusion of the Trial
Court. Admittedly, the alleged agreements to sell do not
bear signatures of respondent Nos.2 and 3, either as
partners of the firm or otherwise. I have perused the
evidence on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was not
present at the time of alleged transaction. The evidence
of witness Suresh Bumb is not sufficient even if remains
unrebutted to hold that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were
partners of partnership firm – Vardhman Development
Corporation.

¶22

06.Considering these facts and circumstances, no

¶23

( 5 ) crwp368.19

¶24

interference is called for in the orders impugned in the

¶25

writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.

¶26

[N.R.BORKAR,J.]

¶27

snk/2021/NOV21/crwp368.19

Prakash Tarachand Chopada Died through Lrs Pankaj S/O. Prakash Chopada v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Tarachand Chopada Died through Lrs Pankaj S/O. Prakash Chopada v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Dilip @ Rajendra Mansukhlal Bafna Vs Dr. Vasant Shankarrao Mane

Aruna Sega Gavit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pathan Zafarali Khan S/O Mehmood Ali Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandrakalabai Ambadas Atole Vs Ambadas Deorao Atole

Shahrukh Yunus Khatik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Lilabai Vikram Sanap and Anr. Vs Vikram Laxman Sanap