Partly allowed

Amol Jagdish Patole v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Nov 2022WP/3888/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition where the High Court quashed the lower courts' rejection of an application for interim custody of a car under Section 451 CrPC, granting custody to the husband of the deceased complainant subject to specific conditions regarding the vehicle's modification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; application for interim custody of the car allowed subject to a condition prohibiting transfer or alteration of material parts.

Amol Jagdish Patole Vs the State of Maharashtra — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

11-crwp3888-2022.doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3888 OF 2022

¶5

Amol Jagdish Patole… Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶6

Mr. S.P. Dighe for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for the respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶9

DATED:NOVEMBER 18, 2022

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1.By the impugned order, the revisional Court has confirmed
the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting application of
the petitioner filed under section 451 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.

¶12

2.The dispute is between the petitioner and his wife. The wife
filed a complaint dated on 25 September, 2017 alleging theft of
articles and car by the present applicant. It is alleged that on 8th
September, 2017 the house hold articles and car was taken by the
applicant without her permission.

¶13

3.During pendency of the proceedings the wife died. It is not
in dispute that the present petitioner is the only legal
representative of the wife.

¶14

4. The Courts below rejected the application mandatory on the

¶15

¶16

11-crwp3888-2022.doc

¶17

ground, that the name of petitioner does not appear in the R.C.
Book. The learned Revisional Court observed that the question
that the petitioner is only legal heir of the deceased wife and,
therefore, entitled to the custody of vehicle could not be
considered at this stage in the absence of any proof to that effect.

¶18

5.On perusal of the documents, in my opinion, the applicant
being husband of the deceased wife was entitled for the interim
custody of the vehicle. Since the applicant is the only legal
representative of the wife in absence of divorce between his wife
and the petitioner is entitled to the custody of the vehicle under
section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

6. Hence, the following order:

¶20

a) The order passed below exhibit 14 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Nashik is quashed and set
aside.

¶21

b) The application below exhibit 14 is allowed, subject to
condition that the petitioner shall not transfer or shall not change
material parts of the car unless it is essential for its smooth
running of the car.

¶22

7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶23

8. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶24

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶25

Amol Jagdish Patole v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Jagdish Patole v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Kedar Pandurang Chaudhari 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.

Mukesh Parekh Vs the Stat of Maharashtra and Anr.

Asad Khan Yasin Khan Vs Mohammad Yakub Barkatullah and Anr.

Manohar Kalidas Inamdar and Ors. Vs Rajaram Shivaji Jadhav and Anr.