Nathu S/O Ratiram Karemore vs Smt. Kamal W/O Ramkumar Hatwar And … on 2 July, 2018

On

DATE : 2

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1 Heard.

::: Uploaded on – 04/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2018 01:46:36 :::
J-wp3238.16.odt 2/4

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. Although the impugned order says that the amendment

application does not answer the due diligence test, on a bare perusal of

the proposed amendment and also the facts admitted by the other side, I

find this is not to be completely correct.

Shriram S/O. Bhausaheb Ghanwat vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 July, 2018

On

2. The applicant – the original accused No. 3 challenged the first

information report bearing Crime No. I – 396/2017, registered against him

and other two accused persons at Shevgaon Police Station District

Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Section 379, 452, 427, 447,

323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. We have heard learned counsel Mr. N. B. Patekar appearing for

the Applicant, learned APP, Mr. R. V. Dasalkar for Respondent No. 1 – State

and learned counsel Mr. Yuvraj Kakade for Respondent No. 2.

4. The original complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 lodged a

complaint to the Police Station on 11.11.2017 alleging that the other accused

Nos. 1 and 2 are his real brothers and there was partition between the

complainant and the accused persons. It is further alleged that during

partition, the complainant was allotted eight and half acres of land out of Gut

No. 526 and in that land there was banana crop. The brothers of the

complainant have no concerned with the said land. Fifteen days prior, his

2/5
::: Uploaded on – 04/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 05/07/2018 01:50:08 :::
Cri.Appln.359.18.odt

other two brothers namely Bhausaheb Ramdas Ghanwat and Raosaheb

Ramdas Ghanwat have stolen the banana crop. Again eight days prior to the

incident, they have entered the field and taken away banana crop of

Rs.60,000/-. They have also cut down the water pipeline. The other accused

persons entered into his house and assaulted him. On the basis of the

complaint lodged by the complainant, offence came to be registered against

the present applicant and other two accused persons. The present applicant is

appears to be son of Bhausaheb Ghanwat who is brother of the complainant.

Looking to the contents of the first information report, it appears that there is

absolutely no allegation against the present applicant Shriram Bhausaheb

Ghanwat, however, in the concluding para, the essence of the allegations are

reproduced and while reproducing the same, name of the present applicant is

inserted. So from the contents of the first information report, it appears that

there are allegations of theft, assault etc. against the real brothers of the

complainant namely Bhausaheb and Raosaheb. There are absolutely no

allegations against the present applicant.

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar & … vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 2 July, 2018

On

2. This application is filed by the applicants under the provisions of

section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of first

information report No. 59/2000 registered with Mhasawad police station,

District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under section 376 2(d), 420

read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1) (x) of

the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .

3. On 06.12.2000 the respondent No. 4 lodged the first information

report stating that under false assurance of marriage, the applicant No. 1 kept

physical relations with her and subsequently refused to marry with her.

Lalit S/O. Chinubhai Shah vs Gulabchand S/O Motilal Lad (Died) … on 2 July, 2018

On

DATE : 2

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. The impugned orders are based upon the award passed by

the Lok-Adalat on 17.6.2012. It is the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner, who was original defendant No.4 that no objection

allegedly given by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal,

which was preferred against the order of dismissal of the suit filed by the

present respondent No.4, a sale-deed was executed by the present

respondent Nos.1 to 3 in favour of present respondent No.4. According

to him, such an objection could not have been acted upon for the simple

reason that a suit filed for specific performance of the contract by the

respondent No.4 against the present respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also the

petitioner itself was not pending, it having been dismissed on the point of

bar of limitation.