Tag: Criminal Quashing Of Fir C.R.

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 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2395 OF 2018 Nilesh Natvarlal Bhayani : Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents. Mr. Aaditya A Gore for the Petitioner. Mr. K V Saste, Addl. PP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 26th JUNE 2018 P.C. 1 The Petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR which has been registered under Sections 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said FIR has been registered by the Competent Authority i.e. Assistant Supply Officer exercising powers under the Essential Commodities Act. 2 The Petitioner is the partner of the firm M/s. Mahavir Gas Services which is a distributor of LPG Cylinders. The gravamen of the allegations against the said firm is in respect of the alleged malpractices in respect of the cylinders which are meant for commercial purposes. The deficiency as regards the number of cylinders found at site has been recorded in the FIR. The Petitioner's other two brothers one Mahendra N Bhayani and Virendra N Bhayani are also the accused along with the Petitioner. 3 In his endeavour of seeking quashing of the FIR on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner in fact as a whistle blower has brought to the notice of the authorities the alleged malpractices being committed in the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services. It was further the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act would not be attracted as the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services does not fit the requirements of the said Section 10. 4 We are unable to accept the said contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner implicit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is the fact that there seems to be a dispute between the Petitioner and his brothers as a result of which the Petitioner it seems made a complaint to the authorities. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the Explanation to the said Section, which clarifies that a "Company" would include a "Firm", which the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services undoubtedly is. Apart from Section 10, the offences alleged against the Petitioner are also under Sections 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act. The contentions which were sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as regards nonactive participation of the Petitioner in running of the business of the said M/s. Mahavir Gas Services, at best can be the defences of the Petitioner which would be available to him for being urged at the appropriate time. We therefore do not deem this a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction at this stage. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to state that the trial would be proceeded with on its own merits and in accordance with law. [PRAKASH D. NAIK, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2136 OF 2015 Vijay Ganpat Dedhia ….Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Harakchand Tejshi Gala ….Respondents Mr. Atharva A. Dandekar i/b. Mr. O. A. Siddhiqui, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harakchand Tejshi Gala, complainant-in-person. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 9th JULY, 2015. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saste, learned APP and respondent No.2 in person. The petition is filed for quashing FIR No.175 of 2014 registered with D. B. Marg, Police Station, Mumbai, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Pending investigation, the parties settled their dispute amicably and have approached this Court. The said crime is registered against eight persons including the present petitioner. Though the petition is filed by one accused, respondent No.2 in paragraph 3 of his affidavit dated 10th March, 2015, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit "B", has given no objection for quashing the entire FIR against all the accused. Respondent No.2 is present before the Court. On being questioned, he specifically stated that whatever has been stated in the affidavit is true and correct and he has no objection for quashing the subject FIR against all the accused. It can, thus, be seen that the dispute was totally personal in nature, which has now been settled amicably. In these circumstances and especially in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and ors. versus State of Punjab and anr. 2014 AIR (SCW) 2065, we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- by the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit the costs with Central Police Welfare Fund, A/C.914010029005759 AXIS Bank, IFS Code-UTI B0000060 and Sr.No. 913 WP 2136.15 thereafter produce the receipt thereof on the file of this petition within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, the criminal writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court. Subject to above, the criminal writ petition stands disposed of. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 5: suresh 908-WP-2265.2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2265 OF 2014 Sakshi Naresh Nagwani @ Neetu Kanayalal Gursahani .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. J.S. Kini i/b Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. Ms M.H. Mhatre, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: V.M. KANADE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED: JULY 01, 2014 P.C: Issue notice before admission to the respondents, returnable on 3072014. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the meantime, there shall be adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). (P.D. KODE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2265 OF 2014 Sakshi N. Nagwani ..Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. Mr. Sunedh Kale a/w. Ms. K.H.Rajani for the respondent no.3. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,JJ. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2015. P.C. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the MECR No.3 of 2013 registered at Rabale Police Station, in pursuance of the order under Sec.156(3) issued by the learned Magistrate in OA No.256 of 2013. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent no.3, due to the differences between the parties, respondent no.3 has filed criminal case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420, 384, 406, 504, 506, 407 r/w. 34 of IPC and under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. The learned Judge passed an order under Section 156(3) and thereafter MECR in question is registered against the petitioner. The differences and disputes between the parties were thereafter settled by intervention of mediator and accordingly consent terms were entered into between the parties in Criminal Application No. 743 of 2014. In para 14 and para 22 of the said consent terms both the parties agreed to withdraw the allegations made against each other. The respondent no.3 has also given no objection for quashing of the said MECR. The respondent no.3 also has filed an affidavit dated 12.1.2015. In para 3 he has given no objection for quashing and setting aside the said MECR in pursuance of the consent terms dated 23.12.2014. The respondent no.3 is personally present in the court. He states that he has gone through the consent terms and affidavit and states that he has no objection for quashing the said MECR. He further states that he is giving no objection without any influence or coercion from anybody. In the above facts and circumstances, and in the light of the decision in the case of in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] wherein it is held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code.". It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582] , we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

Order - Status 11: SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2265 OF 2014 Sakshi Naresh Nagwani ….Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and ors. ….Respondents None for the petitioner. Ms. K. H. Rajani, advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 5th MARCH, 2015. P.C.: The matter is placed on board for speaking to the minutes of order dated 12th January, 2015. It is submitted that certain inadvertent mistakes have crept in the said order. The said mistakes are rectified and are, accordingly, read and substituted as under : In paragraph 1, instead of "OA No.256 of 2013", it be read and substituted as "OMA No.658 of 2013". In paragraph 2, line 4, "Section 407" be read and substituted "Section 497". In cause-title as well as in paragraphs 2 and 4, the words "respondent No.3", be read and substituted as "respondent No.4". The order dated 12th January, 2015, stands corrected accordingly. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) Shubhada S Kadam 1/1

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ....Petitioner V/S M/s. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (i) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ....Respondent Mr.Akshay Prakash Shinde for Petitioners. Mr.A.R.Kapadnis- APP for the State. CORAM : SURENDRA PANDHARINATH TAVADE, J DATE : 2nd January, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 30/01/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Petitioners Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/b Mr. Akshay Prakash Shinde for the Petitioners None for the Respondent No.1 Mr. A. R. Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2–State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. (THROUGH VIDEO-CONFERENCING) THURSDAY, 6th JANUARY 2022 P.C. : 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2 By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order issuing process as against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the wife of Manoj Date, the proprietor of M/s. Anuj Textiles and the petitioner No. 2 is the mother of Manoj Date. He submits that both the petitioners are not concerned with the proprietary concern i.e. M/s. Anuj Textiles. He further submits that Manoj Date, as a proprietor of M/s. Anuj Textiles, had issued the cheques in question, which are dishonoured and that the petitioners have been arraigned as accused by virtue of their relations with Manoj Date and that they are not concerned with the said transaction. 3 Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 3rd February 2022. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2-State. In addition to Court notice, petitioners to serve the respondent No.1 by Advocate's notice and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. 4 In the meantime, till the next date, the proceedings qua the petitioners, is stayed. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus M/s. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners. …. Mr. Govinda S. Gupta h/f Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for Respondent No.1. …. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2022. PER COURT : The petition was circulated at the instance of respondent No.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Govind Gupta submits that the arguing counsel appearing for respondent No.1 is in difficulty and hence the petition may be adjourned. Stand over to 14th November, 2022. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date And Anr. ...Petitioner Versus M/s.. Eashkrupa Shiping And Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay P. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2022. PER COURT : Not on Board. Taken on Board. Papers are produced for extension of interim relief granted by this Court. By order dated 06.01.2022, the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the petition was listed on 28.09.2022 at the instance of the respondent and it was adjourned to 14.11.2022 but interim order dated 06.01.2022 has not been extended. Hence, the interim order is extended till the next date of hearing i.e. on 14.11.2022. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 1

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Eashkrupa Shiping & Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay Shinde for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Verma for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2022 P.C.: Stand over to 2nd December, 2022. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is extended till 5th December, 2022. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Eashkrupa Shipping & Logistics (I) Pvt Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/by Mr. Akshay P. Shide for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kumar Verma for respondent no.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the respondent no.2/State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 2, 2022 P.C.: The petitioners are accused nos.3 and 4. From the averments in the complaint, it is clear that accused no.1 is a proprietary firm of which accused no.2 is the sole proprietor. As per averments in the complaint, accused no.3 is the wife of accused no.2 and accused no.4 is the mother of accused no.2. In relation to the proprietary firm, it is stated in the complaint that accused nos.2, 3 and 4 jointly handled the day-to-day business affairs of respondent no.1 firm and, therefore, accused nos.3 and 4 are vicariously liable for the cheque issued by the accused no.1. Since accused no.1 is neither a firm nor a company, the provisions of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not attracted. Arguable questions are raised. Rule. There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) qua the petitioners only. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 18: Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2592 OF 2019 Hema Manoj Date and Anr … Petitioners V/s. M/s. Eashkrupa Shipping and Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd and Anr … Respondents Mr. Manoj Badgujar i/b Mr. Akshay Shinde for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwinkumar Verma for the respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State/respondent No.2. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2023 P.C.: Learned advocate for the respondent No.1, on instructions, of the complainant the complainant has no objection to set aside the order dated 19th January, 2019. The order order dated 16th June, 2017 passed against the petitioners. He states that the complainant has no objection to quash the complaint against the petitioners. In view of consent of the complainant/respondent No.1, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.2238 OF 2014 Omprakash Bajrangi Tiwari ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ********** Mr.M.S. Prasad for Petitioner Mrs. P.H. Kantharia -APP for the State ********** CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JULY 23, 2014 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. This petition is filed for quashing of FIR registered by Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been registered with the Kurla Police Station vide C.R. No. 23 of 2014. It is submitted that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were adults when the complaint was filed and in the complaint it is alleged that since the Petitioner had given false assurance and promise of marriage, Respondent No.2 had given her consent to have sexual intercourse with him. It is submitted that now the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have married. Our attention is invited to the marriage certificate which is annexed to the petition. It is submitted that, therefore, now the provisions of section 420 and 376 are not attracted. Secondly, it is submitted that Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit and has stated that the said vat (WP 2238 of 2014) complaint was filed by her on account of misunderstanding that the Petitioner was not willing to marry her. In the affidavit, she has also stated that this was the mistaken belief since the Petitioner has now married with Respondent No.2 and, therefore, the allegation made by her was on account of misunderstanding. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the offences punishable under section 420 and 376 are not attracted to the facts of the present case. The ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab and another [2014 AIR SCW 2065] would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. We have interviewed Respondent No.2. She has stated that they are living happy married life and they are staying separately in a rental premises. We are of the view that the quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet is in the interest of both the Complainant as well as her husband. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The FIR which is registered by the Kurla Police Station vide C.R. No.23 of 2014 for the offence punishable under section 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which has resulted in filing of the charge-sheet / Sessions Case pending in the Sessions Court, Mumbai are quashed. Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [P.D. KODE,J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.] Vaishali Tikam

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2842 OF 2019 Amit Omkarnath Pandey ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....Respondent Adv. Ashish Dubey For Petitioner Adv. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for State CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J DATE : 10th June, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 11/06/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2842 OF 2019 Amit Omkarnath Pandey ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents …... Mr.Ashish Dubey for the Petitioner. Mrs.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent No.1State. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE J. DATE : 11 JUNE, 2019 P.C.: This Petition is filed for the following substantive prayer : (a). That the impugned the condition i.e., applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 9,17,900/ in the court, imposed by the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge1 Court, Vasai in order dated 19/03/2019, be quashed and set aside; …... Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon unreported judgment of this Court (Coram: Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, J.) dated 1st November, 2018 submits that, an onerous condition of directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 9,17,900/ by the learned Additional Sessions Judge1, Vasai should not have been imposed while Trupti 1/3 allowing the application of the petitioner to release him on bail. It is submitted that imposition of the said condition is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ashwin Ashirwad Parmar Versus The State of Maharashtra 1 . 3*.* Upon hearing learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusal of the grounds taken in the petition, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner can apply before the same Court, who has granted the conditional bail, for recalling the condition of directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 9,17,900/ as condition precedent to release him on bail. In that view of the matter, liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply before the learned Additional Sessions Judge1, Vasai. In case such an application is filed by the petitioner, the said Court is directed to consider and dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible, however, within a period of four days from filing of such application by the petitioner. 1 Criminal Application No. 390 of 2017 dated 24.07.2017 Needless to observe that at the time of filing such application, the petitioner shall serve a copy of the said application on the Office of the Public Prosecutor in the Sessions Court,Vasai. In view of the above observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of. All the contentions on merits are kept open for being agitated before the said Court. (S.S.SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.649 OF 2019 Vaibhav Dattaram Mantri & Anr. ... Appellants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Karansingh Rajput and Hrishikesh A., Advocate for the Appellants. ..... Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr.Rohan V. Bhosle h/f. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 .... CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A.M.BADAR JJ. DATED : 2nd MAY 2019. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The learned APP waive notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Counsel Mr.Sandeep Karnik waives notice for Respondent No.3. 2 In the meantime, as an adinterim measure, we direct that the seal put on the concerned premises be removed and the possession of the premises be handed over to the Appellant. The Appellants shall not part the premises with any other person and shall remain in the premises till further orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings. The Appellants shall abide by any such direction that might have been passed in the present proceedings. This Order shall remain in operation till the next date. 3 Stand over to 3 rd June 2019 for hearing along with the connected matters. 4 All the concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order. (A.M.BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 763 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 12/2019, 157/2019(APPST), 207/2019, 208/2019, 514/2019, 580/2019, 606/2019, 664/2019, 729/2019 with APPA. 637/2019, APEAL. 1486/2018, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018, 1538/2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders __________________ Mr. R. K. Bhagatsingh, for the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 763/2019. Mr. Chaitanya Pendse i/b Siddhi Bhosale, for the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 514 / 2019. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi & Dinesh Parmar i/b DSR Legal, for Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 157/2019. Mr. Rajiv Patil, Sr. Counsel a/w Sangeeta Salvi & Muzaffar Baig, for the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 12/2019. Mrs. S. V. Sonawane, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY, & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : JUNE 3, 2019 PC. On the prayer of the learned counsel 18 - APEAL. 763-19, connected matters for Respondent No. 3, four weeks further time is granted to file reply. On earlier occasion also, time was granted. If no reply is filed by the next date, the matter shall proceed in accordance with law. S.O. 1st July, 2019. Adinterim order to continue till the next date. Sd/ [INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.] Sd/ [A. M. BADAR, J.] Vinayak Halemath

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS avk 2/10 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 SURESH DATTA KAKDE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2018. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018. Mr.Chaitanya Pendse i/b. Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Rajput Karansingh a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Ambre, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2019. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms.Sangita Salvi, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019. Mr.Mayur Faria, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in this batch of appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act). In these appeals, orders dated 26th October 2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.840 of 2018, 841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 arising out of MPID Case No.5 of 2001 have come to be challenged. In this batch of applications, it appears from the impugned order, that these three applications were filed by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. Directions were issued by the Designated court inter alia allowing the said applications and directing respondent no.2 (Competent Authority) with the assistance of respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, EOW, Unit VII, to take physical possession of rented premises from various tenants/purchasers of tenanted rights/premises locked. 2 At the very outset, senior learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent no.3/applicantavk 7/10 accused had filed such an application did not possess the necessary "locus standi" and further without making the appellants herein (tenants), who are necessary parties, parties in the application before the Designated court. On perusal of the impugned order and on query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/applicantaccused, he fairly admitted that the present appellants were necessary parties, since directions had been sought in the said applications for their removal and for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from them. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the other contentions placed, we are prima facie satisfied that the present batch of applications, at the behest of respondent no.3/applicantaccused ought not to have been entertained by the Designated court, for the simple reason that necessary parties against whom directions had been sought had not been impleaded in the said applications. We are constrained to record our concern as to how the Designated court proceeded to pass the impugned order, without avk 8/10 ensuring that the parties who were likely to be adversely impacted, upon the directions sought for being issued. 4 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the applicant(accused) had failed to implead necessary parties in his application before the Designated court. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 26th October 2018. 5 We, further, grant liberty to the respondent no.3, if he is so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings by making all necessary parties, party to such proceedings, but at the same time, leave open the issues raised by the appellants herein, questioning the locus standi of the applicantaccused/respondent no.3 for initiating such a proceeding. 6 Before parting, we hereby direct that the order of the Designated court relating to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and/or other directions must be adhered to and complied by the appellant. 7 We further direct that by various interim orders passed from time to time, this court had directed continuation of possession in the hands of the appellants subject to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing. We observe that those directions shall continue subject to any modification that may be made by the Designated court from time to time, if such circumstance arise. 8 In terms of the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed. With disposal of these appeals, all pending applications also stand disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS avk 2/10 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 SURESH DATTA KAKDE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2018. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018. Mr.Chaitanya Pendse i/b. Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Rajput Karansingh a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Ambre, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2019. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms.Sangita Salvi, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019. Mr.Mayur Faria, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in this batch of appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act). In these appeals, orders dated 26th October 2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.840 of 2018, 841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 arising out of MPID Case No.5 of 2001 have come to be challenged. In this batch of applications, it appears from the impugned order, that these three applications were filed by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. Directions were issued by the Designated court inter alia allowing the said applications and directing respondent no.2 (Competent Authority) with the assistance of respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, EOW, Unit VII, to take physical possession of rented premises from various tenants/purchasers of tenanted rights/premises locked. 2 At the very outset, senior learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent no.3/applicantavk 7/10 accused had filed such an application did not possess the necessary "locus standi" and further without making the appellants herein (tenants), who are necessary parties, parties in the application before the Designated court. On perusal of the impugned order and on query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/applicantaccused, he fairly admitted that the present appellants were necessary parties, since directions had been sought in the said applications for their removal and for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from them. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the other contentions placed, we are prima facie satisfied that the present batch of applications, at the behest of respondent no.3/applicantaccused ought not to have been entertained by the Designated court, for the simple reason that necessary parties against whom directions had been sought had not been impleaded in the said applications. We are constrained to record our concern as to how the Designated court proceeded to pass the impugned order, without avk 8/10 ensuring that the parties who were likely to be adversely impacted, upon the directions sought for being issued. 4 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the applicant(accused) had failed to implead necessary parties in his application before the Designated court. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 26th October 2018. 5 We, further, grant liberty to the respondent no.3, if he is so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings by making all necessary parties, party to such proceedings, but at the same time, leave open the issues raised by the appellants herein, questioning the locus standi of the applicantaccused/respondent no.3 for initiating such a proceeding. 6 Before parting, we hereby direct that the order of the Designated court relating to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and/or other directions must be adhered to and complied by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. avk 9/10 7 We further direct that by various interim orders passed from time to time, this court had directed continuation of possession in the hands of the appellants subject to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing. We observe that those directions shall continue subject to any modification that may be made by the Designated court from time to time, if such circumstance arise. 8 In terms of the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed. With disposal of these appeals, all pending applications also stand disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2018. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018. Mr.Chaitanya Pendse i/b. Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Rajput Karansingh a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Ambre, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2019. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms.Sangita Salvi, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019. Mr.Mayur Faria, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in this batch of appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act). In these appeals, orders dated 26th October 2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.840 of 2018, 841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 arising out of MPID Case No.5 of 2001 have come to be challenged. In this batch of applications, it appears from the impugned order, that these three applications were filed by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. Directions were issued by the Designated court inter alia allowing the said applications and directing respondent no.2 (Competent Authority) with the assistance of respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, EOW, Unit VII, to take physical possession of rented premises from various tenants/purchasers of tenanted rights/premises locked. 2 At the very outset, senior learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent no.3/applicantavk 7/10 accused had filed such an application did not possess the necessary "locus standi" and further without making the appellants herein (tenants), who are necessary parties, parties in the application before the Designated court. On perusal of the impugned order and on query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/applicantaccused, he fairly admitted that the present appellants were necessary parties, since directions had been sought in the said applications for their removal and for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from them. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the other contentions placed, we are prima facie satisfied that the present batch of applications, at the behest of respondent no.3/applicantaccused ought not to have been entertained by the Designated court, for the simple reason that necessary parties against whom directions had been sought had not been impleaded in the said applications. We are constrained to record our concern as to how the Designated court proceeded to pass the impugned order, without avk 8/10 ensuring that the parties who were likely to be adversely impacted, upon the directions sought for being issued. 4 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the applicant(accused) had failed to implead necessary parties in his application before the Designated court. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 26th October 2018. 5 We, further, grant liberty to the respondent no.3, if he is so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings by making all necessary parties, party to such proceedings, but at the same time, leave open the issues raised by the appellants herein, questioning the locus standi of the applicantaccused/respondent no.3 for initiating such a proceeding. 6 Before parting, we hereby direct that the order of the Designated court relating to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and/or other directions must be adhered to and complied by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. avk 9/10 7 We further direct that by various interim orders passed from time to time, this court had directed continuation of possession in the hands of the appellants subject to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing. We observe that those directions shall continue subject to any modification that may be made by the Designated court from time to time, if such circumstance arise. 8 In terms of the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed. With disposal of these appeals, all pending applications also stand disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 SURESH DATTA KAKDE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT WITH avk 4/6 CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.P.Pawar i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.1486 of 2018, 207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018 and 763 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 24th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Motion is moved for speaking to minutes of the order dated 18th July 2019. In the last line in paragraph six, inadvertently the words "applicantaccused/respondent no.3" are typed instead of the word "appellant". It be corrected accordingly. With this, motion stands disposed off accordingly. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)