Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Baburao Vanjari and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2024WP/1481/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay (Criminal) quashed an order allowing revision and quashing the trial. The lower court quashed proceedings based on a compromise without seeking court permission for the compoundable offence under Section 420 IPC, which was violated. The order was set aside and the case restored.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge quashing proceedings dismissed; RCC No.113 of 2011 restored to JMFC file.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vijay Baburao Vanjari and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE Chitra Sonawane SONAWANE 1 Date: 908-WP-1481-2018.doc 2024.02.28 11:06:25 +0530

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 Cri.Writ Petition No.1481 of 2018

¶4

The State of Maharashtra… Petitioner.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1. Vijay Baburao Vanjari
Age:Adult, Occ:Business, R/a Karkamb,
Tal.: Pandharpur, Dist.:Solapur.

¶7

2. Laxman Vijay Vanjari

¶8

Age Adult, Occ.Labourer,

¶9

R/a Karkamb, Tal.Pandharpur,Dist.Solapur... Respondents.

¶10

Mr Arfan Sait APP for petitioner/State.
Mr Amit Icham for respondent No.1.
Mr Balwant Salunkhe for respondent No.2.

¶11

Coram: R. N. Laddha, J.
 Date : 23 February 2024.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Heard Mr Arfan Sait, the learned APP for the
State/applicant; Mr Amit Icham learned Counsel for
respondent No.1 and Mr Balwant Salunkhe, learned counsel
for respondent No.2.

¶14

2.By an impugned order dated 14.12.2015 the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, allowed the revision

¶15

Chitra Sonawane 2 908-WP-1481-2018.doc

¶16

application, and thereby quashed and set aside the order
passed by the JMFC, Pandharpur. The learned JMFC by this
order rejected the prayer of the petitioner to compound the
offences.

¶17

3.In the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge noted that since both the original complainant and the
accused had jointly filed the compromise pursis to compound
the offence, it would be unnecessary to subject the accused to
the ordeal of a trial and accordingly, the request for
compounding the offence was granted. The accused was
charged under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal
Code. The offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC are non-
compoundable while the offence under Section 420 IPC is
compoundable with the permission of the court. Admittedly
no permission was sought to compound the offence under
Section 420 IPC.

¶18

4.In view of above, the impugned order passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, is quashed and set
aside and RCC No.113 of 2011 is restored to file of learned
JMFC, Pandharpur.

¶19

5. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.

The State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Baburao Vanjari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Baburao Vanjari 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

Ganesh R. Tambe Vs Mmrda Thr. Its Social Development Officer

Shri Karunakar K. Hegde Vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Council and Ors.

Prakash Vasant More Vs Pramod Alias Prabhakar More

Palani Mahalingam Pallar Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Juhu Vile Parle Development Co-Operative Housing Association Limited Vs Palani Mahalingam Pallar

Chagan Rajaram Mahadik Vs Vijay Kashinath Tetambe