Disposed

Surendra @ Sonu Tambi Pillay v. State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Juni Kamptee, Distnagpur and Another

Bombay HC17 Jan 2022APL/360/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nagpur Bench Criminal Application Tribunal disposed of an application seeking quashing of an FIR. Based on the State's reply admitting inability to charge under certain IPC sections, the court accepted this statement and disposed of the application accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application was disposed of on the basis of the State's admission that the offences under Sections 395 and 457 IPC could not be made out.

Surendra @ Sonu Tambi Pillay Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

apl360.20 8

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.360/2020 Shri Surendra @ Sonu Tambi Pillay

¶5

..vs..

¶6

State of Mah., thr.PSO PS Juni Kamptee, District Nagpur and anr

¶7

OfÏce Notes, OfÏce Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶8

................................................................................................................................................................... Shri Amit Khare, Counsel for the Applicant. None for Non-applicant No.2. Mrs.M.A.Barabde, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶9

CORAM: V.M.DESHPANDE & G.A.SANAP, JJ.
DATED: JANUARY 17, 2022

¶10

1.Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing
and learned counsel for parties agree that Audio and Visual Quality
was proper.

¶11

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for quashing of First Information Report vide
Crime No.63/2020 registered with Kamptee Police Station, Nagpur
for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 452 of the Indian
Penal Code.

¶12

3. Heard learned counsel Shri Amit Khare for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mrs.M.A.Barabde for the State. Learned counsel Shri S.O.Ahmed
for non-applicant No.2 has not joined hearing through Video
Conferencing.

¶13

4. On 7.7.2020, Notices on this application were issued.
5. In pursuance to Notices, the State has filed its reply.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant inviting our
attention to paragraph No.8 of the reply filed on behalf of the
prosecuting agency submits that in view of the reply the present
application be disposed of accordingly.

¶14

.....2/-

¶15

apl360.20 8

¶16

¶17

7. The State in its reply at paragraph No.8 has stated as

¶18

under:

¶19

“It is respectfully submitted that during the
investigation no evidence was found to establish
the offence under section 395 of Indian Penal
Code against the present applicant. During
investigation in the video footage the golden
chain and ring were found on the person of the
complainant and his brother. The investigation
in the present crime is completed. As no
offence under section 395 of Indian Penal Code
is made out against the present applicant,
section 395 and 457 of Indian Penal Code are
deleted and a chargesheet for the offence under
section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code prepared and ready for filing. It is
submitted that ad-interim anticipatory bail is
granted to the present by the Hon’ble Sessions
Court.”

¶20

8. In view of the statement made on oath by the
prosecuting agency, it is clear that the prosecuting agency has not
filed chargesheet against the applicant under Sections 395 and 457
of the Indian Penal Code and they will be filing chargesheet only
under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

9. In view of the statement made on oath by
Investigating Officer, the criminal application is disposed of
accordingly.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

!! BRW !! Digitally signed by BHUSHAN BHUSHAN RANA RANA WANKHEDE WANKHEDE Date: 2022.01.17 16:27:26 +0530

¶24

...../-

Surendra @ Sonu Tambi Pillay v. State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Juni Kamptee, Distnagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra @ Sonu Tambi Pillay v. State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Juni Kamptee, Distnagpur and Another

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

Rushikesh S/O Sudarshan Bhidkar Vs the State of Mah, Thr P.So. Karanja Distt. Washim

Suresh S/O. Somaji Bhoyar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its P.S.O., P.S. Gadchiroli

Sandeep S/O Purushottam Bansod Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur Tha. and Dist Nagpur and Another

Giridhar S/O Digambar Tijare Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Katol, Tehsil, Katol, Distt. Nagpur. and Another

Lakshya @ Lucky S/O Sanjay Turkel Vs State Ofmah. Thr. Deputy Commissionr of Police Zone NO.2 Sitabuldi Nagpur and Another

Dr. Nagesh Tulshiram Shewale and 4 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Wadi Nagpur (City) Nagpur and 2 Others