Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sumit Vijay Bone vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2271 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 2271 Bom
Judgement Date : 4 May, 2016

Bombay High Court
Sumit Vijay Bone vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 4 May, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
                                                                           apl72.16


                                            1




                                                                           
                                                   
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                   Criminal Application [APL] No. 72 of 2016




                                                  
     Sumit Vijay Bone,
     aged 26 years,
     occupation - Agriculturist,
     resident of Gandhi Nagar,




                                          
     Amravati,
     Distt. Amravati.         ig                      .....       Applicant.


                                          Versus
                            
     1.      State of Maharashtra,
             through Police Station
             Officer, Police Station,
      

             Rajapeth, Amravati.
   



     2.      Shailendra Gangadharrao
             Navathe,
             aged 55 years,
             occupation - Business,
             resident of Navathe Plot,





             Badnera Road,
             Distt. Amravati.                       ....       Respondents.


                                     *****





     Mr. Pankaj Navlani, Adv., for the Applicant.
     Mr. Ghurde, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1.

     Mr. Roshan Suryawanshi, Adv., for respondent no.2.

                                           *****




    ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:53:33 :::
                                                                             apl72.16


                                           2




                                                                            
                                                    
                                   CORAM   :    B. R. GAVAI AND
                                                MRS. SWAPNA S. JOHI, JJ.

Date : 04th May, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:

01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor Mr. Ghurde, waives service for respondent no.1, and

learned Adv. Mr. Roshan Suryawanshi, Adv., for respondent no.2.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. By consent of rival parties,

this Criminal Application is taken up for final hearing and disposed of

by this Judgment and Order.

02. By the present application, the applicant has approached

this Court with a prayer to quash and set aside First Information Report

No. 96/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 120, 420, 463, 468

and 471 of Indian Penal Code, registered by Respondent No.1 -

Rajapeth Police Station, Amravati, against the applicant.

03. The First Information Report, in question, is lodged at the

behest of respondent no.2 with regard to certain mutation entries in

the revenue records.

apl72.16

04. It appears that there was a transaction between the parties

with respect to purchase of some property. The First Information

Report, in question, is an outcome of such transaction.

05. The learned counsel for the parties inform that the parties

have now settled the matter. The applicant as well as the respondent

no.2 are personally present before this Court and they reiterate about

the settlement.

06. In the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & another

[ (2014) 6 SCC 466 ], we find that since the present dispute is basically

of a civil nature and no element of public law is involved, it is a fit case

where this Court should exercise powers under Section 482, Criminal

Procedure Code, and give an end to the criminal proceedings.

07. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause

[a].

               Judge                                                   Judge
                                   -0-0-0-0-
     |hedau|





                                                                apl72.16







                                                               
                                       
                                      
                                  
                             
                            
      
   







 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter