Quashed

Kedar Pandurang Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2022WP/247/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, quashed the order of issuance of process and dismissed the proceedings in a private offence case involving cheating and forgery. This decision was based on the amicable resolution of disputes between the petitioner and the victims.

What did the court decide?

The order of issuance of process dated 23rd October 2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane is quashed and set aside. The proceedings are dismissed. No costs.

Kedar Pandurang Chaudhari Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

33-crwp247-2020.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.247 OF 2020

¶5

Kedar Pandurang Chaudhari

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.…Respondents

¶9

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2022.11.17 18:39:49 +0530

¶10

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi with Ms. Trisha Bhattacharya
and Mr. Prasanna Bhangale for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for respondent no.1/State.

¶12

Mr. Jayprakash Ganapati Baikerikar, authorized
signatory of respondent no.2 is present in person.

¶13

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶14

DATED:NOVEMBER 17, 2022

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1.The challenge in this petition is to the order of issuance of
process dated 23rd October 2019 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thane in R.C.C. No. 2007 of 2018. The offence
registered against the petitioner is under sections 418, 420, 448
I.P.C.

¶17

2.During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner
and respondent no.2 have amicably resolved their disputes.
Respondent no.2 is personally present in Court. He has submitted
copy of his Aadhar card. The same is verified and it is ascertained
that the respondent no.2 is the same person.

¶18

¶19

33-crwp247-2020.doc

¶20

3.Both parties have filed consent terms signed by the petitioner
and respondent no.1. The consent terms are taken on record and
marked ‘X’ for identification.

¶21

4.On perusal of the averments in the complaint, it appears that
the offences are private in nature. In that view of the matter, in
view of amicable resolution of disputes between the parties, the
impugned order of issuance of process dated 23rd October 2019
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane in R.C.C.
No.2007 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.

¶22

5. The proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.2007 of 2018 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane are dismissed.

¶23

6. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶24

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶25

Kedar Pandurang Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar Pandurang Chaudhari 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

Vinod Z. Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Regency Corporation through Kartik P Vasani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Regency Corporation through Kartik P Vasani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kishor Narkhede and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjeev Indurao Desai and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Adv. Chandrashekhar Vitthal Gawade Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.