Shri Shankar J. Desai v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 336, 427, 506(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Considering the nature of complaint, accusations giving rise to offence under section 336 I.P.C. and the punishment involved, the statements of witnesses also adduced to the situation that there will not be any fruitful conclusion if the matter is riped for trial. The parties…
Judgment
Shri Shankar J. Desai ...Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents Mr S.G. Rajput for Petitioner. Mrs G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. Mr Suhas Kharat for Respondent No.2. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J. DATED : 23RD JULY 2012. P.C. :-
Heard both the learned counsel for parties. The respondent No.1 has prosecuted the petitioner Shri Shankar J. Desai vide C.R. No.206 of 2008 dated 26th June 2008 for offence punishable under sections 506(2), 336, 427 I.P.C.
During the course of submissions, it is informed that the parties have resolved the controversies, the matter is settled, witnesses to the event have also filed their affidavits, even vrd 2 WP3699/11 original complainant Smt Gita B. Bharamgauda has also filed affidavit supporting cause of the petitioner.
Considering the nature of complaint, accusations giving rise to offence under section 336 I.P.C. and the punishment involved, the statements of witnesses also adduced to the situation that there will not be any fruitful conclusion if the matter is riped for trial. The parties desire to live happily and seek exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Even otherwise, the evidence or the text of F.I.R. Does not make out a case for infraction of section 336 I.P.C. Writ petition no.3699 of 2011 is allowed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 336, 427, 506(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 23 Jul 2012. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL.
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.