✦ Bombay High Court

APPELLATE v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Writ Petition No. 919 of 2007B H MARLAPALLE2 min read

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. Petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Judgment

1.

Amit A.S. Shubhangi Sale Shitole, Borade APP respondent petitioner. State. no.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE, MARLAPALLE, MARLAPALLE, J. J. J. DateDateDate : : : September September September 13, 13, 13,

2007. 2007. 2007.

Heard Mr. Sale the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shitole, learned APP appears the State and Ms. Borade the learned counsel appears for the respondent no.2.

2.

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing C.R. No.142 1994 registered against 15/10/1994 petitioner offences punishable Section 323 IPC Section 3(1)(x) Scheduled Castes :2:

1989. Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Atrocities) Act, During course investigation, present petitioner absconding and, therefore, charge-sheet against Shri Subhash Jayprakash Salunkhe Special Criminal Case No. 3

1995. The original complainant PW 1 Shri Popat Shivaji Lokhande stepped witness 15/10/1998 during Special Cri. Case No.3 1995 declared hostile learned APP. The Special Cri. Case No.3 1995 finally dismissed learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge Sangli Judgment Order 15/10/1998. About 9 later, petition quashing the C.R. from which Special Cri. Case No.3 of 1995 originated.

3.

The original complainant-respondent no.2 has affidavit-in-reply supported prayer quashing C.R. In addition, Mr. Sale relied decision Mansur A. Khan vs. State of Maharashtra ors. [2004 (3) Mh.L.J. 550] and more particularly the observations made in para 10 therein. :3:

4.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner was not available trial, declared absconder 9 C.R. approaches quashing allowing a prayer amounting granting reward absconder. The petitioner cannot allowed acquittal in support of his prayer to quash the C.R. when he was absconding.

5.

Petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 919 of 2007). ← Search more judgments