Allowed

Bhagwati Infrastructure Partnership Firm Thr. Virendra Vijay Butolia and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Commissioner of Police Nagpur City Nagpur Civil Lines Nagpur and 2 Others

Bombay HC5 Jul 2022WP/262/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition to quash an impugned sentence order. Upon hearing that the Consumer Forum decree had been fully satisfied by the petitioners and the victim had no grievance, the court held the grievance was redressed.

What did the court decide?

The imprint order dated 16.09.2019 sentencing Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to the terms mentioned therein is quashed and set aside.

Bhagwati Infrastructure Partnership Firm Thr. Virendra Vijay… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Judgment

¶2

1 20.Cri.W.P.No.262.2022.odt

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2022

¶5

1)	Bhagwati Infrastructure, A Partnership Firm, through its Managing Partner, Shri Virendra Vijay Butolia, Office at 472, Anand Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440024.
2)	Shri Virendra Vijay Butolia, Age 45 Years, Occ. - Business, R/o 1/44, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440024, (Presently in central jail)
3)	Shri Praful Laxmichand Zade, Age 48 Years, Occ. - Business, R/o. 472 Anand Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440024.	…. PETITIONER S
	//VERSUS //
1)	State of Maharashtra, Through Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City Nagpur, Civil Lines Nagpur-440001.
2)	The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur, through its Registrar, 5^thFloor, Administrative Building No.1, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001. (Deleted as per order dt.27.04.2022)
3)	Mrs. Rekha W/o Amit Chatterjee, Age 40, Occ. - Service, R/o. Plot No.125, Sharda Building, Opposite Pravin Medical Stores,
	Parvati Nagar, Nagpur-440027.

¶6

…. RESPONDENTS

¶7

Judgment

¶8

2 20.Cri.W.P.No.262.2022.odt

¶9

Mr. S.I. Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. M.J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1

¶10

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND G.A. SANAP, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 05.07 .2022

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

¶13

Heard Mr. S.I. Khan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State and the Respondent No.3, who is personally present before

¶14

the Court.

¶15

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶16

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶17

Mr. S.I. Khan, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits

¶18

that the decree of the Consumer Forum has been satisfied with the execution of the sale-deed upon completion of the construction of the flat in question and also payment of an amount together with interest has been paid to the Respondent No.3 as per the terms of the decree of the Consumer Forum. He also submits that amount of Rs.10,000/- of costs have also been paid to Respondent No.3. He therefore,

¶19

Judgment

¶20

3 20.Cri.W.P.No.262.2022.odt

¶21

prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 sentencing the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to the terms mentioned therein.

¶22

Mr. M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 submits that an appropriate order may be passed in the matter.

¶23

Although, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 is not present before the Court, the Respondent No.3 is personally present before this Court and she confirms that the decree in question has been fully satisfied and that now she has no grudge against the Petitioners.

¶24

The Respondent No.3 has been duly identified by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. We have also verified her Aadhar Card bearing No. 7226 2571 6613 which mentions her maiden name and her Government Office I.D. bearing No.GAHN/ESTD/1C/30242016 and we are satisfied that the identification made by learned counsel for the Petitioners is correct. We direct that photo copies of both the I.D. Cards be placed on record and said original I.D. Cards be returned to the Respondent No.3.

¶25

Thus, the grievance of the Respondent No.3 having been redressed fully, the Petition now deserves to be allowed.

¶26

Judgment

¶27

4 20.Cri.W.P.No.262.2022.odt

¶28

The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. The impugned

¶29

order dated 16.09.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

¶30

Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶31

(G.A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

¶32

Kirtak

¶33

Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK BHIMRAO JANARDHAN Signing Date:06.07.2022 15:04

Bhagwati Infrastructure Partnership Firm Thr. Virendra Vijay Butolia and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Commissioner of Police Nagpur City Nagpur Civil Lines Nagpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwati Infrastructure Partnership Firm Thr. Virendra Vijay Butolia and 2 Others v. State of Mah. Thr. Commissioner of Police Nagpur City Nagpur Civil Lines Nagpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramila Bhushan Sangole and 2 Others Vs Bhushan Ram Sangole and 5 Others

Hinganghat Shikshan Sanstha, through Its President, Wardha and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and

Aditya S/O Yashwant Nannaware Vs Registrar, Sant Gadgebaba University, Amravati and Another

Vijay Ajabrao Bodhare Vs Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Another

Sanjay Madhukar Waghade Vs State of Mah. Thr. Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) East Region Nagpur and Another

Smt. Savitiridavi Premkumar Kapoor Vs State of Mah. Thr Its Secretary, Home Department Mumbai