All Cases

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.490 OF 2015 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.773 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. Shyamkumar Marwadi for applicant. Ms. Mallika Ingale for respondent no.2. Mr. Tapan Thatte for Intervener in APPP-490/2015. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 17th November 2015 P.C.: This application has been taken out by the original complainant for intervention in Anticipatory Bail Application no.773 of 2015. For the reasons stated in the said application and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to allow the said application. The applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.773 of 2015 is hereby directed to implead the original complainant as respondent no.3. The amendment to be carried out within one week from today. The application is allowed in the above terms. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 ..... Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ..Appellant. versus Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Smt. V.R. Bhosale , Addl.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. 3rd July, 2015. P.C. : The Appellant to remove the office objections within a period of three weeks from today. Stand over to 24th July, 2015. (A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavale and Anr. ...Respondents ***** None for the Appellant Mr. N. B. Patil - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 02nd FEBRUARY, 2023 P. C. :- None present for the contesting parties, even though matter is fixed for final hearing. Matter be kept on 09th March, 2023 under the caption 'for direction'. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 10: SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2023.03.13 14:28:18 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavale and Anr. ...Respondents ***** Mr.Sandip Kagade i/b. Mr.Anand Patil, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia – APP for the Respondent No.2-State. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : th 9 MARCH, 2023 P. C. :- Learned Advocate Shri.Anand Patil is busy before some other Court. The Court of JMFC has acquitted the Accused by invoking the powers of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Cr.P.C."] as per the order dated 26th December, 2012. It is for not taking steps by the Complainant. Matter be kept on 16th March, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle and Anr. ...Respondents ***** Mr. S. R. Ghanavat i/by Mr. Anand S. Patil - Advocate for the Appellant Mr. H. J. Dedhia - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 16th MARCH, 2023 P. C. :- As learned Advocate Shri Anand S. Patil is busy before some other Court, adjournment is sought. Matter be kept on 18th April, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 15: Tauseef 12-APEAL.16.2015.doc Digitally Date: 2023.04.25 12:10:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale …Appellant Versus Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 18th APRIL, 2023 P.C. Mentioned out of turn. Learned Advocate for the Appellant seeks accommodation. The Appeal is already admitted. Matter be kept on 14 th June, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 17: HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2023.07.28 00:34:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale Age 56 years, Occupation-Business R/o 2114, "E" Ward, Kawala Naka Kolhapur ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle Age 36 years, Occupation-Business R/o 823, "E" Ward, Line Bazar, Kolhapur … State of Maharashtra …Respondents Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATED : 18TH JULY 2023 JUDGMENT : Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant-complainant. No one is present on behalf of the Respondent-accused. Issue involved in this Appeal is as under : "Whether power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised at post evidence stage when accused remained absent ?" 10.a16.2015.odt The appeal was already admitted on 5th December 2014. The action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated. The Farad Sheet dated 6th June 2023, mentions that Respondent No.1-accused has furnished surety of Rs.10,000/- on 30th June 2015. However, no one has appeared in this Appeal. It is travesty of justice, that appeal involving trifle issue remained pending for eight years. Reasons may be different. Perused the impugned order dated 26th December 2012, passed by 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur in Summary Criminal Case No.4161 of 2006. The accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by taking recourse to Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When this order came to be passed, the matter was fixed for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint was filed in the year 2006 bearing SCC No.4161/06. Roznama indicates accused was in the habit of avoiding process of this Court. The following are the important dates :- January 2007 Process was issued. 17/08/2010 Non bailable warrant issued as accused remained absent. 23/03/2001 Accused produced in execution of Non bailable warrant Application for bail Plea recorded 24/03/2011 Accused released on bail. 30/03/2011 Evidence of complainant. 7/04/2011 No cross order. Close pursis. Adjourned for statement under Section 313 of the Code. 14/07/2011 Non bailable warrant issued 1/02/2012 Cash surety forfeited Issued non bailable warrant. 30/10/2012 Non bailable warrant issued through Superintendent of Police 26/12/2012 Complaint dismissed for want of taking steps. So from events what transpires is as follows :- (a) The complaint is pending since 2006. (b) Accused has no respect for law. (c) He has not responded to Court summons earlier to plea and thereafter also. (d) Trial Court was required to issue non bailable warrant on various occasions. (e) Prior to recording of plea, non bailable warrant was served and Respondent-accused was released on cash bail. (f) Non bailable warrant could not be served even through Superintendent of Police. On this background, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 15th Court, Kolhapur passed an order dated 26/12/2012 thereby acquitting the Respondent-accused by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate noted following facts in the order :- (a) The complainant was absent persistently on 15/06/2012, 4/08/2012, 25/09/2012 and on 30/10/2012 (para 2). (b) Report of Superintendent of Police indicates that accused was outside his house (para 3). (c) Complainant has not taken steps under Section 82, 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (para 4). Now the question is whether it was appropriate for the learned Magistrate to take recourse to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If we read those provisions, we may find the following ingredients :- (a) Case is fixed for hearing. (b) Complainant is absent. (c) His presence is required. (d) Court does not feel it necessary to adjourn the matter. Then only complaint can be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand 1 , has dealt with this issue. The purpose is to check the dilatory tactics of the complainant, principle of speedy trial is recognised. 9. However, if the entire facts and circumstances of the case are considered, there is reason to believe that the learned Magistrate has hastily passed that order. It is a matter of record that accused has no respect to the law. And on every occasion, the complainant was 1 (1998) 1 SCC 687 10.a16.2015.odt required to take steps. Execution of non bailable warrant is not an easy formality. At the same time, it is also true that unchallenged evidence could not have been used by the trial Court unless it was put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, trial Court ought to have given weightage to the fact that patience of complainant was tested every time. If it is so, the trial Court waited and could have given direction to the complainant to take steps. The judgment of acquittal need not be interfered rightly. But the power under Section 256 of the Code should not be exercised only for the purpose of disposing of the cases. Trial Court has not considered the efforts taken by the complainant every time to secure presence of the complainant. The order deserves to be set aside. Certain directions for speedy disposal are required as the complaint is pending since 2006. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :- O R D E R (a) The Appeal is allowed. (b) The order passed by the Court of 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur dated 26th December 2012, is set aside. Shiv 6/7 The complaint is restored to file. (c) The complainant is directed to appear before the 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur on 28th July 2023, at 11 am and is directed to take necessary steps. (d) Once the Respondent appears, the trial Court is directed to keep the matter on day-to-day basis. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 736 OF 2016 (For fixing date of final hearing) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2007 Arjun Baban Jagdhane Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Onkar Nagvekar i/b Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar for the Applicant Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. WEDNESDAY, 20th JULY, 2016 P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. By this application, the applicant prays that the Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2007 be restored to the final hearing board and date may be fixed for final hearing. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Appeal was earlier added to the final hearing board, however, is not on board now. Perused the application. For the reasons set out in the application, the application is allowed. Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2007 be added to the final hearing board in the category of appeals where the accused are on bail, in the week commencing from 25th July, 2016 at its appropriate place. Application is disposed of. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3702 OF 2019 Maha. Police Co-op. Housing Federation Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. (No.2) Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30032 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30028 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30031 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30036 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30030 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30029 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30034 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30033 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30035 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3702 OF 2019 Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .. Applicant In the matter between: Maharashtra Police Co-operative Housing Federation Limited .. Petitioner Versus Saraf Choudhari Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents .................... Mr. V.S.Kapse i/by Mr. N.S.Rajeshirke for Petitioner Mr. Mandar Limaye i/by Mr. S.S.Aradhye for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for State Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 Mr. Vivek Walavalkar i/by Mr. Abhijeet Gosavi for Intervenor ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2022. P.C. : Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. As informed to the Court, 10 out of the 14 Societies are ready for redevelopment. There are certain issues which are required to be looked into. The 4 reluctant Societies are now represented by Mr. Limaye and Mr. Aradhye (learned Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 to 4) before the Court. This Court had directed both Advocates to use their good officers to see if the said Societies bury their differences and participate in the redevelopment. Admittedly, the redevelopment is at the behest of Federation. One of the grievance mentioned by Mr. Limaye is effective representation of the 4 reluctant Societies in the Federation. Mr. Walawalkar and Mr. Kapse both inform the Court that in so far as effective representation is concerned and disclosure of any other issues to the said Societies are concerned, they are open to the same. In view of the above, this Court makes it clear that unless and until the 4 reluctant Societies point out perversity in the actions of the Petitioner, this Court will be reluctant to cancel the registration. This observation is however prima facie, and subject to hearing the objectors. At the joint request of all learned Advocates for respective parties, stand over to 16th December, 2022. In the meanwhile, adinterim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue. For the above reasons the 9 Interim Applications of the Societies for impleadment are allowed. Interim Application Nos. I.A.No. 30032 of 2022, I.A.No. 30028 of 2022, I.A.No.30031 of 2022, I.A.No. 30036 of 2022, I.A.No. 30030 of 2022, I.A.No. 30029 of 2022, I.A.No. 30034 of 2022, I.A.No. 30033 of 2022 and I.A.No. 30035 of 2022 are disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a) which is identical in all Applications and reads thus: "(a) Allow the Applicant to intervene in the present matter and be further pleased to direct the Petitioner to join the Applicant as a party respondent to the present writ petition," Necessary amendment to be carried out by tomorrow. Re-verification is dispensed with. Copy of the amended cause title shall be provided to the Respondents before the next date. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI 14:37:27 +0530

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2003 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.725 OF 1991 Shree.. Rajasthan Jain Sangh Petitioner v/s. Mataprasad Singh Bholanath Singh since deceased by his heirs: 1A.Smt.Ram Dulari wd/o.Mataprasad Singh.. & ors. Respondents Ms.Monica D'Souza for Mr.A.K.Abhyankar for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Dixit i/by M/s.V.R.Tripathi & Associates for the respondent. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. DATED : 10th October, 2005 P.C. 1991 OF No.725 Application Revision Civil it when and 17.9.91 on court this by admitted was was it 21.4.1994 on hearing final for up came has application civil This default. in dismissed respondent the record on bringing for filed been of representatives legal the as 1H to Nos.1A the note, office the per As No.1. respondent days. 102 and years 8 by time beyond is application for filed 2002 of No.430 application Civil been has application revision the of restoration rejected today and therefore, this application does not survive. (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 5: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders or directions & Registrar Registrar's orders. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Mohd. Shine with S. S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP No. 2129 of 2016. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Manish Rai for petitioners in WP No. 2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ **.** July 05, 2016. P.C. : Issue notice to respondents, returnable after four weeks i.e. 2/8/2016. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1 – State. Till the next date i.e. 2/8/2016, we direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of the subject crime. However, it is clarified that there is no stay to the investigation. (PRAKASH D. NAIK *,* J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Mohd.Shine with S.S.Bijlani for Petitioner in WP No.2146 of 2016. Mr.G.K.Masand i/by Manish Rai for Petitioner in WP No.2129 of 2016. Mr.Kanishk Jayant with Mr.Harvinder Singh for Respondent no.2. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 2nd August 2016 PC :­ 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2. Heard. Learned counsel for Respondent no.2 appears. Stand over to 10 August 2016. Ad­interim relief granted earlier to continue till 10 August 2016. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents …... Mr. Mohd. Shine a/w. S.S. Bijlani, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P. No.2129 of 2016. Mr.G.K. Masand i/b. Mr.Manish Rai, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P.No.2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for Respondent - State in both the petitions. Mr. Kanishk K. Jayant, Advocate for Respondent Respondent no.2 in both the petitions. …... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2016. P.C. : Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Following issues arise for consideration: (a) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Maharashtra; (b) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab; (c) Whether FIR/complaint registered against accused persons attracts penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the SC & ST Act") 2 In the facts and reading compliant whether penal offence is attracted, learned counsel appearing for petitioners places reliance on following judgments: (a) Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. 1 (b) State of Mahrashtra Vs. Milind & Ors. 2 (c) Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. 3 (d) Ghanshyam Kala s/o. Jagat Ram Kala Vs. The State 4 (e) Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra 5 (e) Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 6 1 (1990) 3 SCC 130 2 (2001) 1 SCC 4 3 (2008) 12 SCC 531 4 2009(1) Uttaranchal Decision 639 5 2003(3) Mh.L.J 225 6 (2010) 8 SCC 775 3 Learned counsel appearing for complainant prays for dismissal of these petitions. It was submitted that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab and in relation to the State of Maharashtra, the issue is required to be considered on a broader prospective. Learned counsel referred to Article 17 of the Constitution of India. 4 Learned APP submits that investigation is likely to be completed within three to four weeks. 5 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We find that the issues raised by petitioners for consideration. 6 Rule. Rule returnable early. 7 In the meantime, further proceedings consequent to registration of FIR stands stayed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Mr. Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Mohd. Shine i/b S.S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP/2129/2016. Mr.Manish Rai for petitioner in WP/2146/2016. Mr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Kaushik Jayant a/w. Ms. Antra Jayant, Mr. Nilesh Mandavkar, Mr. Rajye Jain i/b Kanishk Jayant for respondent No.2 in WP/2129/2016 and WP/2146/2016. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : 9TH OCTOBER 2019 P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned, in view of urgency. Taken on production board. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in both petitions. 3. The subject first information report bearing C.R. No. II-15/2016, dated 18-05-2016 on the complaint of the respondent No.2 (in both petitions) for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016, are the original accused Nos.1 and 2 in the subject crime and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2129 of 2016 are the original accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the subject crime. 4. Pending investigation of the subject crime, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and accordingly the complainantrespondent No.2 has submitted consent terms before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-Panvel in Hindu Marriage Petition No.297 of 2015. The copy of the consent terms presented before the Court. Clause (4) of the consent terms reads as under :- 4 The petitioner Husband has agreed to give his consent for quashing of FIR filed by him bearing No. II-15/2016 dated 18 th May 2016 u/s 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act, 1989 and section 7(1)(5) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. 1955 with CBD Police Station, Navi Mumbai against father of the Respondent i.e., the Gharasingh Chahal, Gurmit Kaur, Gurbax Singh, Hardeep Singh Anjan, Mehersingh Randhava, K.J.S. Bhatti, Gurinderjit Saini. The Petitioner-husband is agreed to give his consent and/or file an affidavit to that effect in Writ Petition bearing No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition bearing No. 2129 of 2016 filed in respect of said FIR bearing No.II-15/2016." 5. In view of the above understanding, the parties have approached this Court for quashing the subject crime. The respondent No.2 has filed a common affidavit dated 9 th October 2019 in both Writ Petitions, i.e., Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 and in paragraph 6 thereof, has given consent to the withdrawal of all the charges levelled in the subject crime. The respondent No.2 is personally present in Court and on specific query by this Court, confirmed that he has no objection to quash the subject FIR. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaints, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1 , we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), respectively. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the petitioners for using the police and judicial machinery for settling their personal disputes. In view of this, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs in each petition. The total amount of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to "Tata Memorial Hospital", an institution that takes care of the patients suffering from cancer at advanced stage and/or terminally ill due to cancer. For the quashment to take effect, the petitioners shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petitions shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference 1 2014 AIR SCW 2065 to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est. 8. Subject to above, the writ petitions stand disposed of. [ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ] [ RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 818 OF 2015 Mr. Ismail S/o. Mehmoob Sayyed ... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.A.M.Saraogi, Advocate,for the applicant. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP, for the State CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 2nd July, 2015. P.C . Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.249 of 2014 registered at Basant Park (Chembur) Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The applicant had approached the Court of Sessions seeking pre-arrest bail in the year 2014. By an order dated 30.5.2014, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had directed the Investigating Officer to give 48 hours' notice to the applicant prior to his arrest. The application was disposed of. Mhi 2 ABA-818-15.sxw The Senior Inspector of Police of Chembur Police Station had requested the officer in charge of Aurad Police Station, Dist. Bidar, Karnataka State that the present applicant is wanted in Crime No.249 of 2014 registered at Chembur Police Station and in the eventuality that the applicant is traced, he shall be detained and the information be relegated to Chembur Police Station. It is pertinent to note that the police personnel of Chembur Police Station had made several visits to serve a 48 hours notice upon the applicant, but to no avail as his permanent address is not known. It appears that the applicant is absconding. The learned counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that the applicant was not even arrested in the offence registered against him at Aurad Police Station. The whereabouts of the applicant are not known. There is no impugned order which may be challenged before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. In view of this, the applicant doe not deserve the discretionary relief in the nature of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the application being sans merits, stands rejected. (SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)