Swarup Patil

Order - Status 4: Uday S. Jagtap IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Bhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ..... ….. None for the petitioners Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the respondent - State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2022. P.C. The aforesaid petition has been circulated by the petitioner no.1, who appears in person. However, the petitioner is absent. Stand over to 16th November, 2022. PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 5: 902-WP-2150-2022.doc SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2022.09.30 14:39:38 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Nana Dhondiba Desai – Petitioner in person. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2022 P.C. : Heard. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 17th November, 2022 . Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. In addition to Court notice, the petitioner who appears in person to serve the respondent no.2, by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. S. M. MODAK, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 8: 117-wp.2150.2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai, Petitioner No.1 in-person. Mr. K. V. Saste, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1–State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & $R. N. LADDHA, JJ.$ : 17 th NOVEMBER 2022 $DATE$ $P.C.:$ Mentioned out of turn at 10:30 a.m. The petitioner No.1, who appears in person requests for taking up the matter today itself. Considering, there are 176 matters on board as well as $2.$ fixed and part-heard matters at 2:30 p.m., it is not possible to take up the aforesaid matter today. $overline{3}$ . Hence, list the matter under the caption 'For Direction' on 3 rd January 2023 at 2:30 p.m., for fixing date of hearing. $R. N. LADDHA, J.$ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Nana D. Desai, petitioner no.1 in person present in Court Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the respondent - State ….. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 3rd JANUARY, 2023. P.C. Vide order dated 29th September 2022, notice was issued to the respondents returnable on 17th November 2022. In addition to the Court Notice, the petitioner who appears in person, was directed to serve the respondent no.2 by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. We are informed by the petitioner no.1, who appears in person, that he has filed an affidavit of service in the Registry. So far as the office noting is concerned, perusal of the same shows that notice issued to the respondent no.2 is received back unserved with the remark "respondent is admitted in hospital for treatment of brain stroke". Hence, considering the office noting, we deem it appropriate to issue fresh notice to the respondent no.2, returnable on 23rd February, 2023. Notice to indicate that an endeavor shall be made to dispose of the petition finally at the stage of admission, time permitting. Learned APP to also ensure that the concerned officer of the concerned police station informs the respondent no.2 of the next date. In the meantime, till the next date, the trial Court shall defer the proceeding pending against the petitioners. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra $&$ Anr. Respondents Nana Dhondiba Desai – Petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : $23^{rd}$ FEBRUARY, 2023 $P.C.$ : Mentioned out of turn at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner No.1, who appears in person, requests for a fixed date. Stand over to 20 th March, 2023 at 4.00 p.m. $2.$ PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 15: nob-wp-2150.22.doc BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2023.03.21 13:59:09 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents ****** Mr. N. D. Desai - Petitioner No.1, present in-person. Mrs. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State. ****** CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 20 th MARCH, 2023 P.C. :- . Not on board. Taken on board, as the regular bench is not available. Petitioner no.1, appearing in-person, states that he has come from Balgaum (Karnataka). He states that this matter was to be taken up today. He intends that the matter be listed on 23 March 2023, and be placed on the Supplementary Board, as previously ordered by the regular bench. Stand over to 23 March 2023, to be placed on Supplementary Board. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Nana D. Desai, Petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Swarup D. Patil for Respondent No.2. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 27th MARCH, 2023. P.C. : Mr. Swarup Patil, learned counsel appears for Respondent No.2 seeks time to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.2 and also to file reply. Time is granted. Stand over to 10th April, 2023 High on Board. The interim order passed on 03.01.2023 is extended till the next date. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 18: GAIKWAD Date: 2023.04.11 10:24:08 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Nana Bhondiba Desai and Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents ------------------- Mr. Nana D. Desai-petitioner in person . Mr. J.P. Yagnik-APP for the State. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, J.J. DATED : APRIL 10, 2023. P.C. : . Petitioner is present in person. Nobody is present for respondent no.2. On 27th March 2023, Mr. Swarup Patil, learned Advocate had appeared for respondent no.2, he had sought time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2 and also to file reply. So far Vakaltnama has not been filed, reply also has not been filed on behalf of respondent no.2, as stated earlier respondent no.2 is absent and nobody is present on behalf of respondent no.2. In order to grant further opportunity to respondent no.2, put up on 25th April 2023 'High on Board'. Meanwhile, Investigating Officer to personally remain present before this Court on the next date together with copy of the charge-sheet. Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date. (M.M. SATHAYE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Nana D. Desai, Petitioner in person. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Shantanu Raktate a/w. Mr. Amar Parsekar, Mr. Saurav Katkar i/b. Mr. Swarup Patil, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023. P.C. : For the reasons separately recorded, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1), which reads as under:- "Wherefore the petitioners most humbly pray that F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 & charge-sheet / complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 / original complainant within the Chandgad Police Station vide F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 and Charge Sheet U/S 379, 411 R/w 34 of I.P.C., please be quashed and set aside, on such terms & conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ]

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022 Mr. Nana Dhondiba Desai and Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Nana Desai Petitioner-in-person. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Shantanu Raktate a/w Mr. Amar Parsekar, Mr. Saurav Katkar i/b Swarup Patil for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL 2023 : JUDGMENT (PER: M.M.SATHAYE,J.): Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for Respondent No.1/State. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrP.C.), the Petitioners are praying for quashing of FIR No. 49 of 2015 registered with Chandgad Police Station, District Kolhapur for offences punishable SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2023.05.30 17:38:28 +0530 under Sections 379, 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also for quashing of the consequent Criminal Case bearing RCC No. 65 of 2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Chandgad, District Kolhapur. Office report shows that pursuant to interaction dated 02.06.2022, the Petitioner No.1 Mr. Nana D. Desai was found to be able to put forth his case appropriately before the Court and as such requirement of scrutiny by the Registrar under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, is duly passed by the Petitioner No.1. Accordingly, heard Petitioner No.1 Mr. Nana D. Desai, who appeared in person for and on behalf of all the Petitioners as their power of attorney holder. Heard Mr. Yagnik, learned APP for Respondent No.1- State and Mr. Raktate for Respondent No.2 original complainant/informant. Perused the record. Petitioner No.1 has taken us through the averments in the FIR filed by the Respondent No.2 as well as other documents produced by him on record. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No.2 along with other persons who are members of Chamber of Commerce, were demanding illegal amount of Rs.25,000/- from Petitioner No.2, who refused to pay and therefore, Respondent No.2 has falsely implicated the Petitioners in this case. Be that as it may. Since this is a petition for quashing, we have to go by the averments in the FIR, considering them at face value. Perusal of FIR dated 10.04.2015 shows that it is the case of Respondent No.2 that he has a karkhana by named Bell-steel Industries in the Industrial Estate at Shinoli. It is alleged that on 09.04.2015, at evening time when Respondent No.2 was strolling around the premises of his karkhana, he found that two couplings from his karkhana (worth Rs.5,000/- according to FIR) were missing. Therefore, it is alleged that he went to the Chamber of Commerce office and informed the committee members and they went to the The Petitioner No. 1's shop, who is a scrap dealer and inquired about it. It is alleged by Respondent No.2 that he found the two couplings in Petitioners' shop, which were stolen from his karkhana. So also it is alleged that some more stolen goods from one 'Dipanjali Metals' were also found in the shop of the Petitioners. It is alleged that when he inquired with Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 about the presence of the alleged stolen goods in their shop, no satisfactory answers were received and therefore, the FIR was lodged against the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and unknown people. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that this FIR is based on assumption that the Petitioners have purchased goods stolen from Respondent No.2's karkhana and one Dipanjali Metals. It is argued that Respondent No.2 himself has acted as if he is an Investigating Officer and has already concluded the issue about alleged theft and on this conclusion of theft, the FIR is filed. It is further argued that the police or the investigating agency is supposed to look into the veracity of the claim before registering the FIR and without that being done, the impugned FIR is registered under Section 379 (theft) and 411 (receiving stolen property dishonesty) of IPC. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/informant opposed this petition contending inter alia that the averments in the FIR are sufficient to attribute specific role to the Petitioners and that coupled with material collected during investigation, is sufficient to show that the Petitioners must face trial. Learned APP has taken us through the material collected during investigation. Careful reading of Section 378 of IPC (defining theft), shows that whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Taking these allegation in the FIR at its face value, it is not disclosed therefrom, how the Petitioners have taken dishonestly the alleged two couplings from karkhana of Respondent No.2. The FIR is filed after Respondent No.2 has himself taken up a role of investigating agency by gathering people from Chamber of Commerce, directly going to the shop of the Petitioners who are scrap dealers, finding out the alleged stolen couplings and identifying them, asking questions to Petitioners and then not being satisfied with their answers. This all is done without involvement of actual investigating agency i.e. police. We fail to understand how the police have accepted this usurpation of role by a private citizen such as Respondent No.2. It is not the case that Respondent No.2 has lodged complaint against unknown persons after finding that certain goods were missing from his karkhana and then during investigation, the Petitioners are found to be in possession thereof with stolen goods identified and therefore, they are accused. Also perusal of Section 410 of IPC (defining stolen property) shows that property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft is stolen property, but if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to it, then it ceases to be stolen property. In the matter at hand, the averments in FIR do not disclose clearly, how the so-called lack of satisfaction of Respondent No.2 about possession of the goods in the shop of Petitioners, can have any bearing on the issue of Petitioners being legally entitled to possess those goods or otherwise. In other words, the necessary ingredients of 'stolen property' and its alleged receipt by the Petitioners dishonestly (Section 411 of IPC), are not at all fulfilled. Another aspect worth noting is that the impugned FIR makes a reference to finding out certain goods allegedly stolen from Dipanjali Metals for which the Petitioners are accused. It is not case that this Dipanjali Metals have also filed any such complaint of theft. Overall, the manner in which Respondent No.2 has filed the impugned FIR and the manner in which its cognizance is taken, can not be sustained. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case to quash the impugned FIR and the consequent criminal case. The facts of this case, clearly cull-out a situation that falls in one of the exceptions carved out in the case of State of Haryana v/s. C. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Therefore, the Petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, we pass following order: ORDER The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1), which reads as under:- "Wherefore the petitioners most humbly pray that F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 & charge-sheet / complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 / original complainant within the Chandgad Police Station vide F.I.R.No.49 of 2015 and Charge Sheet U/S 379, 411 R/w 34 of I.P.C., please be quashed and set aside, on such terms & conditions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper." Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J.)