Tag: Criminal Quashing Of Fir C.R.

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER --- CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 4th September, 2013 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, the following matters on the daily board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. --- Sr.Nos. Adjourned Date 06,09,10,17,20,36,37,38,40,41,42,44 16/09/2013 12,13,14,15,16,43 17/09/2013 19, 22, 23 08/10/2013 24,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,34,35,45 10/10/2013 25 24/09/2013 39 27/04/2013 46,47,48 19/09/2013 49, 50 20/09/2013 If any ad-interim or interim relief granted in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If there is an extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before the Court.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1939 OF 2013 Ganesh Arjun Ghadage And Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Vivek Salunke Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2013. P. C.: . Heard learned Counsel Mr. Vivek Salunke for the Petitioners and Mr. D.R. More, A.P.P. for the State. Issue notice to Respondent No.2 returnable on 15 January 2014. (M.L.TAHALIYANI, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders None for the Petitioner Mr. D. R. More APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JANUARY 24, 2014 P.C. : None present for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner shall furnish a complete spare to the Office within one week from today. Upon furnishing spare copy, Office to issue fresh notice to the Respondent. Notice returnable 4 weeks. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2013 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Rupesh Zade h/f. Mr. Pravin Dubade, advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JUNE 9, 2014 P.C.: 1 Stand over to 23/6/2014. Pendency of this Writ Petition shall not be construed as a stay to the trial in Special Case No. 25/2011 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati. Office to communicate this order to the concerned court. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) ..... Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2013 Ganesh Arjun Ghadage and others .....Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another ....Respondents Mr. Vivek Salunke for Petitioner Mr. Rupesh Zade for Respondent Mr. A. S. Shitole APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2014 PC : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Petitioner herein had filed an application seeking relief that Special Case No. 25 of 2011 be tried along with R.C.C. No. 32 of 2012. The said application was rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that the incident reported in R.C.C. No. 32 of 2012 is not arising out of the same incident and therefore, application seeking clubbing of the cases was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge is not yet framed. However, it appears from the charge-sheet that there are allegations against present petitioners under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and therefore, petitioner would have to be tried by the Special Court. In that case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused in R.C.C. No. 166 of 2011 should also be tried by the Special Court. However, as against them, there are no allegations under the provisions of the Special Act and therefore, they would have to be tried by the Court of Magistrate. In view of this, petition stands disposed of. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2016 Mr.Jaydeep Mane for the Applicant Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for the Respondent No.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA AND P.D.NAIK,JJ. DATE : APRIL 4, 2016 P.C. 1 We direct the Advocate for the applicant to annex typed copy of the document on page 9. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Place the application on 3rd May 2016. The Investigating Officer shall remain present in this Court on the next date along with file. (P.D.NAIK,J) (A.S.OKA,J.)

Order - Status 7: 16-apl-322-2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar & Anr. .. Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Vishal L. Kolekar i/by Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane for the Applicant. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.1 CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA & P.D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 03rd MAY 2016. P.C. Applicants have not complied with the order dated 04th April 2016. Only by way of indulgence that we extend the time granted to the applicant to comply with the said order by a period of three weeks from today. If compliance is not made, the application shall stand dismissed for nonprosecution without further reference to the Court. If the compliance is made, application shall be listed on 11th July 2016. [P.D. NAIK, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 18TH AUGUST 2016 P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 48, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 (Cri) th July 2016 5 34, 35, 42 and 43 (Cri) 16th December 2016 38 (OS) 22nd August 2016 39, 73 and 74 (Civil) 21st December 2016 40 and 67 (Cri) 10th October 2016 41, 47 and 65 (OS) th October 2016 5 44, 45, 46, 49, 50 and 51 (Cri) 19th December 2016 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 (Cri) 20th December 2016 66, 70 (Cri), 71 (OS) and 72 (Cri) 29th August 2016 68 and 69 (Civil) th September 2016 7 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : V.M. KANADE & MS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ DATE : 16th December, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 16/02/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 16/02/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. Nitesh J. Mohite i/by Mr.Jaydeep D Mane For Applicant Dr. F.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for Respdt./State. CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 16th February, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, Stand over to 22/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr Nitesh J Mohite i/by Jaydeep D Mane For Applicant Dr F.R.Shaikh APP for state CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATE : 22nd March, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the applicant , Stand over to 19/04/2017 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ DATE : 19th April, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 14/06/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent None for the Applicant. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre - APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : None for the Petitioner/Applicant. S.O. to 12/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb Bhagwan Havaldar And Anr ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent None for the Applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar - APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE. & SMT. DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ DATE : 2nd November, 2017 P.C. : None for the Petitioner/Applicant. Stand Over to 30/11/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 322 OF 2016 Dada @ Dadasaheb B. Havaldar and Another. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr. Nilesh Mohite i/b J. D. Mane for the Petitioner. Mr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the State. Coram : Ranjit More & Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, JJ. Date : November 30, 2017 . P. C. : Learned counsel for the Applicant seeks leave to withdraw the instant application. Leave granted. Application is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as such. [Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Machindra Bodke, advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for State. CORAM :SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE :JANUARY 15, 2014 P.C.: 1 Learned APP waives service for respondent and seeks time. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Notice returnable on 12/2/2014. 2 Pendency of this Petition shall not be construed as stay to the proceedings. ( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J) Talwalkar 1/1

Order - Status 7: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga .Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. .Respondents Mr.A.M.Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Respondent No.1 – State Mr.Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2014 P.C. . Mr.Arote states that he has been instructed to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2. The office objection, therefore, does not survive. The matter to be listed under the caption "For Admission" after notice on 04.07.2014. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 10: spb/ 10wp2-14.sxw CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 02 OF 2014 Jayesh B. Kanoga … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents. Mr. A. M. Moorthy, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Pasbola with Rahul Arote, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. V.B.KondeDeshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI,J. DATE : 02 SEPTEMEBR, 2014 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 The Petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial is concluded and it is kept for recording of the statement of the Petitioner under section 313 of the Cr. P.C.. 3 The Petitioner had made an application for sending the cheque to the document examiner to determine the hand writing on the cheque. The Petitioner denies of his hand writing on the cheque. He admits his signature on the cheque. The learned Advocate Mr.Pasbola, appearing on behalf of the Borey 1/2 Respondent No.2, has stated that it is not the case of the Respondent No.2 that the cheque was in the hand writing of the Petitioner. The case of the Respondent No.2 is that the cheque bears the signature of the Petitioner and it was given by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2. 4 In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, it is not necessary to discuss the order of the learned Magistrate in detail. The position is made absolutely clear by the statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. In view thereof, I pass the following order. 5 The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Adinterim order, if any stands vacated. ….. (JUDGE)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2018 Viraj Anand Ubale Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 15years, through his Legal Guardian/Father, Anand Ubale Residing at 510/5, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, Agast Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. ...Petitioner Vs. 1. Swapna Pradeep Salunkhe Indian inhabitant, Aged – 35 years, residing at 807/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, Agast Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. The State of Maharashtra through the Senior Police Inspector of Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai ...Respondents Ms. Anandini Fernandes i/by Deepal A. Thakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. …........ Mr. Rajesh R. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. State. …........ WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 246 OF 2018 Pradeep Kashinath Salunkhe Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 43 years, residing at 807/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. Mrs. Swapna Pradeep Salunkhe Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 35 years, residing at 807/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. Dipak Prakash Patil Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 33 years, residing at 503/5, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. Suresh Ramchandra Panwalkar Indian Inhabitant, Aged – 48 years, residing at 810/8, Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. ...Petitioners Vs. Viraj Anand Ubale Indian Inhabitant, Minor, Aged – 15years, through his Legal Guardian/Father Anand Ubale Residing at 510/5, (9) & (10) WP 245-18 & 246-18.doc Riddhi Siddhi Apartments, Papnas Wadi Lane, Agast Kranti Marg, Mumbai 400 036. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Senior Police Inspector of Gamdevi Police Station. Mr. Rajesh R. Shah, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anandini Fernandes i/by Deepal A. Thakkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. …........ Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P. State. …........ CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI ACTING C.J. AND M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2018. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.) : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally by consent of parties. In Writ Petition No. 245 of 2018 the petitioner, who is 15 years old, through his legal guardian is seeking quashing of C.R.No. 226 of 2016 which is numbered as C.C.No. 256/JW/2017 pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dongari, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 354(A) (1) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In the said case Smt. Swapna Salunkhe, who is the mother of the victim girl, has lodged the said FIR wherein it is stated that the petitioner caught hold of the hand of her daughter in the lift and told her that he loves her. In Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018, the petitioner No.1 is Pradeep Salunkhe who is the father of the victim girl in C.R.No.226 of 2016. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2 Smt. Swapna Salunkhe who is the complainant in C.R.No. 226 of 2016. Petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.4 are the neighbours of Smt. Swapna Salunkhe. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018 are seeking quashing of C.R.No. 225 of 2016 of Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is numbered as SCST Case No.6 of 2017 and it is pending before the Sessions Court, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This FIR has been lodged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 245 of 2018 against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 245 of 2018, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2018, learned Counsel for the complainant in both the matters and the learned APP for the State. The accused persons in both the petitions are present before the Court. So also, the complainant in both the matters are present before the Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent/original complainant in both the petitions stated that the cases are cross cases and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. They have stated that with the help of well wishers and common friends both parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and have resolved all the disputes between them and they have stated that they do not wish to pursue their complaints and the complaints may be quashed. Looking to the fact that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and looking to the fact that the complainants in both the cases do not want to pursue the case, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be achieved by continuing with the prosecution in the said case. In this view of the matter, C.R.No. 226 of 2016 and C.R.No. 225 of 2016 and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. The Writ Petitions are disposed of in above terms. Rule is made absolute in above terms. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent None For Applicant Neeta S. Jain, APP for state. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 12th June, 2018 P.C. : None For Applicant. Stand Over to 03/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Bhavesh Maheshchandra Thakur For Applicant H.S.Venegaonkar,APP Mrs.N.S.Jain,APP CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 18th June, 2018 P.C. : At the request of Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar, Stand over to one week i.e. 26/06/2018 on supplementary board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN. U/S 482 NO. 596 OF 2018 Seema Hariom Sharma ....Applicant V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ....Respondent Bhavesh Maheshchandra Thakur For Applicant H.S.Venegaonkar,CBI P.H.Gaikwad,APP CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J DATE : 29th June, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 02/07/2018 High on board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 701 OF 2017 Mrs. Seema Hariom Sharma … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 596 OF 2018 Mrs. Seema Hariom Sharma … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Bhavesh Thakur for the applicant. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad for the RespondentState. Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar for the RespondentCBI CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 02nd JULY, 2018. P.C. The applicants have preferred these applications for return of the cash amount of Rs.2,79,000/ and Fixed Deposit Receipts seized during the course of investigation. ... Mr. Venegaonkar learned counsel for CBI on instructions submits that case for disproportionate assets against the husband of applicant is not made out during the course of inquiry and therefore CBI has no objection for allowing these applications. It is further submitted that amount of Rs.2,79,000/ has been deposited in the Bank of BaradaCBI account. The cheque to the tune of the said amount will be issued in favour of the applicant instead of cash. In view of aforesaid statements, both these applications are allowed. RespondentCBI is directed to return the amount of Rs.2,79,000/ by cheque to the applicant within a period of four weeks from today. RespondentCBI is also directed to return Fixed Deposit Receipts which are subject matter of the application to the applicant within four weeks from today. Both these applications are disposed of. ( PRAKASH D. NAIK, 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 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.)