Judgment · High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The respondent Nos.2 to 4’s case, on the contrary, seems to be that the custody of the vehicle is taken in execution of the recovery certificate granted in favour of the Bank under Section 101. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 457 of…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 753 OF 2012 Smt. Anusaya W/o. Ananda Shingade Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Petitioner ...Respondents Mr. Kishore S Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Poonam P Bhosale, APP for the State. DATED : 13th March, 2012. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. P.C.: Heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner.
#2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, Gadhinglaj and Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, passed on 23rd March, 2011, and 16th January, 2012 respectively below application at Exhibit “74” in RCC No.15 of 2005 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 14 of 2011 respectively. By the said orders, the petitioner’s application under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the vehicle came to be rejected. SSK/919 2 wp 753.12
#3. The petitioner is the complainant who has filed RCC No.15 of 2005 against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 465, 471-A, 477 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4/Office bearers of Gadhinglaj Urban Co-operative Bank forcibly took custody of her vehicle.
#4. The respondent Nos.2 to 4’s case, on the contrary, seems to be that the custody of the vehicle is taken in execution of the recovery certificate granted in favour of the Bank under Section 101. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to for the custody of the vehicle which is alleged to have been forcibly taken into possession by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. In the above circumstances, I do not find any substance in the writ petition, and therefore, the same is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 457; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Mar 2012. The bench was RANJIT MORE.
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.