Allowed

Annasaheb Namdev Ingle v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2023WP/1802/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed an impugned order of a Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting a writ petition. The petitioner successfully claimed to be a necessary party and was directed to participate in the application for return of seized property.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside. The Petitioner and Respondent No.3 were permitted to participate and file submissions in the return of property application.

Annasaheb Namdev Ingle Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

40-wp-1802-23

¶2

1 of 4

¶3

Gokhale

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1802 OF 2023

¶6

Annasaheb Namdev Ingle ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Arjun Kadam for Petitioner.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
Mr. Prashant Parab a/w. Ganpat Monde for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S. S. Bedekar for Respondent No.3.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 7DECEMBER 2023

¶9

PC :

¶10

1.Heard Mr. Arjun Kadam, learned counsel for the

¶11

Petitioner, Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the State/Respondent

¶12

No.1 and Mr. Prashant Parab, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2.

¶13

2.Mr. Bedekar, learned counsel appears and states that, he

¶14

has instructions to appear for the Respondent No.3. He undertakes
to file his Vakilpatra within a period of two weeks from today.

¶15

However, today he has made his submissions and I have heard

¶16

VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE

¶17

him.

¶18

Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2023.12.08 10:46:02 +0530

¶19

2 of 440-wp-1802-23

¶20

3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated

¶21

27.04.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court,
Girgaon, Mumbai, below Exhibit-2 in Application
No.192/Misc/2023. All the learned counsel appearing before me
today submit that, in the impugned order, the learned Magistrate
has not described the parties correctly. The position in fact is that
the petitioner herein is neither an accused nor the first informant
in the proceedings. The Respondent No.2 herein is the first
informant who had lodged the F.I.R. vide C.R.No.488 of 2022 on
04.12.2022 at Gavdevi police station, under sections 13, 145, 147,
149, 323, 341, 427 and 504 of the I.P.C. The Respondent No.3
herein is named as one of the accused along with two unknown
persons. The investigation was carried out. The charge-sheet was
not filed till the impugned order was passed. Learned APP, on
instructions, states that, as of today the charge-sheet is already
filed.

¶22

4.In the meantime, the first informant i.e. the Respondent
No.2 herein Pradeep Ingle filed an application for return of
property which was seized during investigation. The property at

¶23

3 of 440-wp-1802-23

¶24

present is with the police authorities investigating into the offence.
During pendency of the application for return of property
preferred by the Respondent No.2 Pradeep Ingle who is the first
informant, the petitioner filed an application for intervention in
the said application for return of property. His contention was that,
he was a necessary party who should be heard before any order of
return of property is passed. According to the learned counsel for
the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.3 being an accused had
already filed his say in the said application for return of property.
Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 Pradeep Ingle states
that, his application is pending before the learned Magistrate in
which the impugned order is passed. He categorically makes a
statement that he has no objection if the petitioner herein is heard,
as well as, if the Respondent No.3 herein is heard while deciding
the said Application No.192/Misc./2023. The statement is
recorded and accepted. Therefore, the petition can be allowed.

¶25

5.Hence, the following order:

¶26

40-wp-1802-23

¶27

4 of 4

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

i)The impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by
the Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon,
Mumbai, below Exhibit-2 in Application No.192/
Misc/2023, is set aside.

¶30

ii)The Petitioner herein, as well as, the Respondent
No.3 are allowed to participate at the stage of
arguments of the said application. They are
permitted to make oral, as well as, written
submissions.

¶31

iii)The Application shall be decided as early as possible.

¶32

iv)With this direction, the petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶33

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Annasaheb Namdev Ingle v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annasaheb Namdev Ingle v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpesh Rajendra Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manu Jitesh Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jayprakash Dinanath Prasad Vs State of Maharashtra

M/S. Protech Telelinks Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Latkan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Shivaji Bhalke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.