SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1111

V.K.JADHAV, SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI
Sayyad Rahim Sayyad Maheboob – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Sudarshan J Salunke, Advocate, G.O. Wattamwar, Advocate, S.Y. Shinde, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Shrikant D Kulkarni, J. - Heard finally with consent of both the sides.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are seeking the following substantive prayers.

"C. The FIR No.24/2020 registered with Police Station, Sirsala, Dist. Beed for the offences punishable U/s. 306, 504, 34 of I.P.C. and U/s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 may kindly be quashed, which is at Exhibit "A".

C-1 The Charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.24/2020 registered with Police Station Sirsala, Dist. Beed for the offences punishable u/sec. 306, 504, 34 of I.P.C. and u/sec. 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 may kindly be quashed, which is at Exhibit "G".

C-2. The Criminal Case bearing Special Case No.1/2021 (The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sayyad Rahim and Others) pending on the file of Learned Special Judge i.e. Additional Sessions Judge at Majalgaon, Dist. Beed may kindly be quashed."

3. The factual scenario giving rise to this quashing application, in short, is as under:

3(a) Respondent No.2 / first informant lodged F.I.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top