The Ultimate Goal oF     

In the case of Sonali Thombre vs Kalpana Randhumal the court has come to the relief of the applicants by quashing and setting aside an order of issuance of notice dated 7.3.2024. The coram consisting of Urmila Joshi Phalke, J. has quashed this order in relation to a domestic violence proceeding wherein the applicants were neighbours of the respondent Kalpana Randhumal who alleged, that after her marriage she was being ill-treated by her husband and other family members, which forced the respondent Kalpana Randhumal to file a complaint against them under S498A IPC (Cruelty to a married woman) as well as filed applications under various provisions of the domestic violence act. The FIR of the complainant respondent Kalpana Randhumal was already quashed when the police verified that the applicants were neither close nor distant relatives of the informant lady. The court referred the judgment of U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another, which has clarified the position that the persons other than relatives cannot be brought within the compass of Section 498-A of the IPC. Learned Counsel for the applicants Adv Charlewar argued that similar analogy must be applied in the present case as well since the present applicants were never in a domestic relationship and they are not within the definition of respondent therefore, the issuance of the notice by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikhli itself is erroneous and therefore, the said notice liable to be quashed and set aside. The court further clarified the definition of “Respondent” and “Domestic Relationship” as provided under Section 2 (q) and 2 (f) of the Domestic Violence Act respectively and concluded that there is no relationship or there is no averment that at any point of time, the applicant (now respondent No.1) resided with the present applicants in a domestic relationship. The court applied the same analogy in the present case and allowed the criminal application and quashed the impugned order of issuance of notice. Advocate for Applicants - Advocate Ishwar S. Charlewar.

Read more

In the case of Ajinkya Mahure vs State of Maharashtra the Court consisting of Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Vrushali Joshi, the court has come to the relief of the petitioner by passing an order dated 3rd January calling upon the callous and insensitive approach of the Police Station as there were a lot of delays in even registering the cognizable offence under Section 318 (4) Dishonestly inducing a person to deliver a property, 316 (2) Criminal Breach of Trust, and Section 336 (2) Forgery of the newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, The petitioner Ajinkya Mahure was a victim of financial fraud wherein he was cheated out of money amounting to more than 10 Lakhs by the respondent Sejal Sadhwani. The Court also noted that the Investigating Officers were aware of this financial fraud run by the respondent Sejal Sadhwani who falsely posed as a Chartered Accountant promising to grow investments of the Petitioner Ajinkya Mahure. The Court also noted that it failed to understand what prompted the police station to sit over the file for 4 months and neither carry out investigation nor register the offence. The court appraised the arguments put forward by the Counsel for Petitioner Advocate Ishwar S. Charlewar and argued that the complaint of the petitioner had been dealt with an insensitive manner particularly when the plain reading of the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence. The Judges also noted that they failed to understand why the Investigating Officer had to approach the DCP Zone - 4 seeking approval for registration of offence even when the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence. When such procedure was asked to the learned A.P.P A.B. Badar about the same, he was not in a position to explain the same. In this background, The Court has passed an order to direct the DCP Zone - 4 to file an affidavit duly sworn by the same explaining the default within a period of two weeks. Advocate for Petitioners : Adv. Ishwar Charlewar Advocate for Respondent: Adv. A. B. Badar.

Read more

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Smt. Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke pleased to acquit the accused Mohd. Sadik, Abdul Kadar and Sheikh Bashir from the charge under section 147, 148 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code R/w. 135 of Bombay Police Act & 4/25 of the Arms Act. The Hon’ble High Court has also dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by the first informant Mohd. Sadik against 17 accused. One Mujib Khan Mustafa Khan lodged the report with the Police Station Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati against the 17 accused persons alleging that the accused have assaulted by means of sword, iron pipes and sticks. Based on the first information report the Police Station Officer of Anjangaon Surji investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet against all 17 accused. The trial was conducted by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Achalpur, wherein the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Achalpur has convicted the accused Mohd. Sadik, Abdul Kadar and Sheikh Bashir under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- by judgment and order dated 30/09/2006. The appellant preferred the Cri. Appeal No. 589/2006 and the first informant/complainant Mujib Khan Mustafa Khan preferred the Criminal Revision No. 102/2007. The Hon’ble High Court by its judgment and order dated 01/08/2024 pleased to allow the appeal and acquitted the accused Mohd. Sadik, Abdul Kadar and Sheikh Bashir also dismissed the revision against the 17 accused by observing that the recovery of the weapon is not proved and the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. ADV. Ishwar S. Charlewar appeared for the appellants and Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Soniya Thakur appeared for the State. .

Read more