This High Court bench rejected a criminal writ petition seeking to quash an FIR lodged for theft. The court held that points raised regarding malafide, delay, and joint ownership were matters for trial and no case was made out for quashing.
The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SMITA Digitally signed bySMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVESDate: 2022.07.16 GONSALVES 16:11:39 +0530
19.wp581-20.doc
1/3
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.581 OF 2020
Bhausaheb Shivaji Bhosale .. Petitioner v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Ritesh Thobde, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP, for State.
Mr. Ishrat Ali Khan, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 11 JULY 2022.
P.C:-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
1 of 3
2/3
sg
19.wp581-20.doc
purchased one flat along with the Petitioner and documents showing ownership rights and possession. She has stated that she had met the Petitioner, who was a teacher, and had developed a friendship. On 28 July 2019, when the Respondent-Complainant had entered the flat, she found that her suitcase was open and passport and gold ornaments were stolen. She filed a complaint that the Petitioner made duplicate key and stole the gold ornaments.
2 of 3
3/3 19.wp581-20.doc
sg
Complainant, she had signed with her maiden name and that in any case vakalatnama by itself cannot show factum of marriage. He submitted that nothing is shown to demonstrate that there was marriage between the parties.
6. The writ petition is rejected.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report lodged under Section 379 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and allegations of malafide intention justify quashing the FIR.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhausaheb Shivaji Bhosale
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Nitin Jamdar
N.R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
