The Ultimate Goal oF     

In a notable judgment, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR and chargesheet filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sections 509, 504, and 506 of the IPC, calling the complaint vexatious and motivated by personal rivalry. The case stemmed from a complaint by Nirmal Santosh Thate, who alleged that the accused, Prashant Fokmare, threw dirty water on her and hurled caste-based abuses with the intent of grabbing her land. The FIR also cited previous alleged incidents. However, the High Court, comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Praveen S. Patil, found no independent witnesses despite the claims of the incidents occurring in public, and concluded that the FIR was filed with an oblique motive to harass the accused. Advocate Ishwar S. Charlewar of Charlewar Associates represented Mr. Fokmare and played a pivotal role in establishing the lack of evidence and the malicious intent behind the FIR. His compelling arguments and sharp legal insight were instrumental in the Court’s decision to quash the case. This verdict not only brings relief to the falsely accused but also reinforces the importance of due diligence and fairness in handling sensitive legal provisions. Charlewar Associates continues to uphold justice with commitment, clarity, and credibility — standing by those who need the law to work in their favor, not against them. .

Read more

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