All Cases

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.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5339 OF 2013 Shri Bartol Degin Farnat and Ors ..Petitioners Vs. Shri Pascol Manvel Gonsalves and Ors ..Respondents Ms. Neeta Karnik,for the Petitioners. Mr. P. B. Shah i/b Mr. Kayval P. Shah,for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J. DATE : JULY 1, 2013. P. C.: 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the PetitionersPlaintiffs submits that it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the road in question is of 20 feet wide and it has been reduced to 2.8 feet because of the obstruction created by the Defendants in the way. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the report of the Commissioner. However, there is no finding recorded, on prima facie assessment of the case on the question whether there existed 20 feet road and that it was reduced to 2.8 feet by the Aswale 1/2 5339.13.wp Defendants by creating obstruction. In the absence of any such finding, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The same needs to be quashed and set aside. The orders are required to be remanded back to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 3 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 4 The order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Trial court and also by the Appellate Court dated 12.04.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. 5 The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to decide Exhibit5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 159 OF 2009, afresh within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. 6 Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 15.07.2013. 7 The Trial Court is at liberty to grant adinterim relief, if such is claimed by the parties. ( RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2009 Sou. Ushadevi Sambhaji Patil ...... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ....... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359 OF 2009 Shri Sambhaji Anandrao Patil ....... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17 th February, 2009 P.C.: Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the present applicants have defrauded depositors to the tune of Rs 8,27,27,308/. In the affidavit in reply filed by the State it is stated that loans have been given to fictitious and bogus persons who are not in existence. Taking into consideration the allegations which are levelled in the complaint and the affidavit in reply filed by the State, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Both these applications for anticipatory bail are accordingly rejected. Both these applications are disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.414/2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.359/2009 Office notes,Office Memoranda of Coram Appearances,Court's orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's order Mr.Pradeep Gole for the Applicant Mr.Kharge,APP for State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 7th October,2009 P.C. . The learned counsel for the applicant/ original accused submits that he has served the respondents thrice. However, despite of the service they are not appearing. This Revision Application is filed against the concurrent findings of the conviction of the Sessions Court ,Satara and the J.M.F.C. Satara. Thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ordering the applicant/accused to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- .The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already deposited . Rs.30,000/- . The Revision Application is admitted. Issue notice to the respondents. R/o 30/11/2009. The bail application is pressed. The applicant accused is released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like amount. The bail application is disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)