Bombay High Court
Bhagwati Infrastructure ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Commissioner Of ... on 5 July, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
Judgment 1 20.Cri.W.P.No.262.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2022
1) Bhagwati Infrastructure,
A Partnership Firm, through
its Managing Partner,
Shri Virendra Vijay Butolia,
Office at 472, Anand Nagar,
Nagpur, Maharashtra-440024.
2) Shri Virendra Vijay Butolia,
Age 45 Years, Occ. - Business,
R/o 1/44, Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur, Maharashtra-440024,
(Presently in central jail)
3) Shri Praful Laxmichand Zade,
Age 48 Years, Occ. - Business,
R/o. 472 Anand Nagar,
Nagpur, Maharashtra-440024.
.... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur City Nagpur,
Civil Lines Nagpur-440001.
2) The Hon'ble State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission
Nagpur, through its Registrar,
5th Floor, Administrative
Building No.1, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440001.
(Deleted as per order dt.27.04.2022)
3) Mrs. Rekha W/o Amit Chatterjee,
Age 40, Occ. - Service,
R/o. Plot No.125, Sharda Building,
Opposite Pravin Medical Stores,
Parvati Nagar, Nagpur-440027.
.... RESPONDENTS
Judgment 2 20.Cri.W.P.No.262.2022.odt
______________________________________________________________
Mr. S.I. Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. M.J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED : 05.07.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard Mr. S.I. Khan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.
M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent
No.1/State and the Respondent No.3, who is personally present before
the Court.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Mr. S.I. Khan, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits
that the decree of the Consumer Forum has been satisfied with the
execution of the sale-deed upon completion of the construction of the
flat in question and also payment of an amount together with interest
has been paid to the Respondent No.3 as per the terms of the decree of
the Consumer Forum. He also submits that amount of Rs.10,000/- of
costs have also been paid to Respondent No.3. He therefore,
Judgment 3 20.Cri.W.P.No.262.2022.odt
prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.09.2019 sentencing
the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to the terms mentioned therein.
4. Mr. M.J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent No.1 submits that an appropriate order may be passed in
the matter.
5. Although, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 is not
present before the Court, the Respondent No.3 is personally present
before this Court and she confirms that the decree in question has been
fully satisfied and that now she has no grudge against the Petitioners.
6. The Respondent No.3 has been duly identified by the
learned counsel for the Petitioners. We have also verified her Aadhar
Card bearing No. 7226 2571 6613 which mentions her maiden name
and her Government Office I.D. bearing No.GAHN/ESTD/1C/3024-
2016 and we are satisfied that the identification made by learned
counsel for the Petitioners is correct. We direct that photo copies of
both the I.D. Cards be placed on record and said original I.D. Cards be
returned to the Respondent No.3.
7. Thus, the grievance of the Respondent No.3 having been
redressed fully, the Petition now deserves to be allowed.
Judgment 4 20.Cri.W.P.No.262.2022.odt
8. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. The impugned
order dated 16.09.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside in the interest
of justice.
Rule accordingly. No costs.
(G.A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Kirtak
Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK
BHIMRAO JANARDHAN
Signing Date:06.07.2022
15:04
