Disposed

Vikas Dattatray Bansode v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2024WP/4473/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a criminal case alleging offenses against him and his family. The court noted vague allegations and lack of specific roles attributed to the petitioner in the charge-sheet. It directed issuing notice to the complainant to hear her arguments. Interim relief was granted staying trial against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Notice to Respondent No.2 issued for hearing on 31st January 2025. Trial stayed against the petitioner till the next date.

Vikas Dattatray Bansode vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

38-WP-4473-2024.doc

¶2

Shivgan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4473 OF 2024

¶5

Vikas Dattatray Bansode …..Petitioner Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Vijay Killedar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Vinod Chate APP, for Respondent No.1-State.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 13^th DECEMBER 2024.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

The Petition is for quashing of the Regular Criminal Case No.638 of 2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class qua the Petitioner. It arises out of C.R.No. 78 of 2024 registered with Faujdari Chawdi Police Station, Solapur city for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’).

¶11

Heard Mr. Vijay Killedar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Vinod Chate, learned APP, for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶12

FIR is lodged by the Respondent No.2 (‘Informant’) against her husband, Suhel and all his family members. The Petitioner is younger brother of Suhel. The learned counsel for the Petitioner

¶13

1/2

¶14

38-WP-4473-2024.doc

¶15

invited our attention to the FIR wherein various allegations regarding ill-treatment and demand of money are made by the Respondent No.2. Learned counsel submitted that the major allegations are against the other family members and in particular, against the elder brother of Suhel, Vishal. There is only general and vague allegation against the Petitioner. The charge-sheet contains the statements of her family members but none of them has attributed any specific role to the Petitioner.

¶16

Considering the submissions, it is necessary to hear Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has made out a case for granting ad-interim relief. Hence, the following order:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(i) Issue notice to the Respondent No.2 returnable on 31^st January 2025. Humdust allowed.

¶19

(ii) Till the next date before this Court, the trial Court shall not proceed against the Petitioner. It is clarified that this adinterim protection is only in respect of present Petitioner and not in respect of other Accused.

¶20

Stand over to 31^st January 2025.

¶21

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2024.12.17 11:15:03 +0530

¶23

2/2

Vikas Dattatray Bansode v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Dattatray Bansode 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ranjeet Netaji Kore vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vaibhav Vyankat Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep D Thegal vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saddam Balekhan Sonikar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr Rajesh Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravi Rajan Pandayan vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.