Mumbai Aurangabad Court November 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Tushar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent no.1 and learned Advocate for the respondent no.2. Perused the FIR. 3. Substance of the FIR is summarized as follows:- (a) Husband of the informant Sangita namely Janardhan Shinde used to run the institution called Hari Mauli Balak Ashram. (b) He had incurred heavy debt while doing so. (c) The said debt was in the shape of loans from various persons, who are 15 in number and named in the FIR, including present applicant. (d) The debt carried interest. (e) The money lenders had pestered and insulted Janardhan Shinde towards his failure to repay. (f) Janardhan Shinde had to make arrangement of money for payment of fees of his daughter's education, which he was not able to arrange. (g) On account of frustration due to insult, because of failure to arrange fo...
Shaikh Akhil Shaikh Jamil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The present proceeding is filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of Sessions Case No.98/2012 filed against the applicant for offences punishable u/s 366, 511 etc of the Indian Penal Code. The application filed for discharge before the trial Court is rejected by the trial Court. 3. The papers of investigation carried out by police are produced before this Court. This Court has perused the same. 4. The incident took place on 15/04/2011 after 22.30 hours. The complainant Farzana was present in her house situated at Dilras colony, Aurangabad with her daughter / prosecutrix. In the F.I.R. given on 16/04/2011 she made allegations that at the time of incident 3 to 4 youngsters entered her house and they were holding swords. They had come in one car of which number is given in the F.I.R.. Initially, they had taken name of son of the complainant and so the door of the house was opened by the complainant....
Ranapratap Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. In our order dated 30.10.2012, we had recorded observations as follows:- "4. We call upon the learned APP the question as to propriety of conducting the separated trial against the applicant/accused in the background of fact finding done by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.110/2009 that the death-subject matter to be homicidal is not proved, particularly when no other evidence may nor can be tendered." 3. Learned APP was called upon to respond and make submissions on aforesaid observations. 4. Learned APP addressed the Court, summary whereof is as follows:- (i) Absconding accused cannot take benefit of judgment of acquittal in favour of other accused, and (ii) He will have to face the trial whenever he is arrested. 5. Insofar as propositions advanced by learned APP are concerned, there is no dispute or doubt about the same. 6. The finding recorded by the trial court in Sessions Case No.110 of 2009 holding that the death-subj...
Gangadhar Vithobaji Kayande Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) Heard. 2. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. The petitioner had filed a case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for direction to register the offence. The direction under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued. Based thereon Crime No.4 of 2007 for offence punishable under sections 120, 405, 406, 468, 469, 201, 474 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Kadim Jalna Police Station was registered. 4. The text of first information report runs at considerable length. Substance of the first information report is narrated in the body of present writ petition in para no.2 which reads as follows:- "2. The accused no.1 is husband of sister of complainant. Petitioner no.1 was resident of Nashik and therefore, he entered into sale transaction. The transaction was entered in order to assist sister and her husband. The complainant has given money for the said transaction, however, in connivance with each ot...
Dattatraya S/O Pandhrinath Kamble and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. For convenience, the petitioner No. 1 and Respondent no. 2 are referred to with their name. 4. Dattatraya Kamble (petitioner No. 1) was promoted by the management as Head Master by order dated 7.1.2009. The Education Officer approved the said promotion by order dated 1.4.2009. 5. Dattatraya Jadhav (Respondent No. 2) had challenged the said promotion by filing appeal, being appeal No. 12 of 2009 before the School Tribunal, Aurangabad. In the said appeal, he had raised against Dattatraya Kamble, the pleas of fraud, fabrication of documents etc. which he has again raised in the F.I.R. subject matter of challenge in present writ petition. 6. The contentions raised by Dattatraya Jadhav (Respondent No. 2 herein) as appellant before the School Tribunal were that :- (a) Dattatraya Jadhav (Respondent No. 2) the Appellant before Tribunal had entered the employmen...
Jalindar S/O. Kishan Mangrule Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2012
Revision is admitted. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. Seen the original record. 2. Revision is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No.4/2009, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the judgment and order of acquittal delivered in R.C.C. No.399/2005 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad. The C.J.M. had acquitted the petitioner of the offences punishable under section 9, 39, 44, 49 r/w. 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. 3. It is the case of Forest Department that accused Jalindar Mangrule had created barbed wire fencing around his agricultural land and supply of electricity was given to this barbed wire fencing. One deer accidentally came across this fencing, suffered shock of electricity and died. Accused No.1 Jalindar and Khandu then cut the deer in to pieces for eating its flesh. The Forest Officer learned about the incident and they raided the field of accused N...
Kiran S/O Dinkar Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1. Five accused were tried in Sessions Case No.139 of 2011. They were charged for commission of offences under section 302 read with sec. 34, 498A read with sec. 34, 323 read with sec.34, 504 read with sec.34 and 506 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Substance of the charge is ill-treating, intimidating, causing hurt, ill-treatment for dowry related demand and murder of Dipali wife of accused no.1 by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her to fire on 3.8.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. 3. Three out of five accused were convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.139 of 2011 for offences under section 498A and 302 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for one month for offence punishable under sec. 498A read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment for life...
Meenatai W/O Mahadev Nagargoje Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2012
Admit. By consent heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The revision is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Beed delivered in S.C.C. No.1429/2007 in a private complaint filed for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by respondent No.2. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced. Criminal Appeal No.30/2009 filed in Sessions Court, Beed is dismissed and both the decisions are challenged in the present proceeding. Both the sides are heard. Original papers are perused by this Court. 3. It is the case of complainant that the accused was known to him for about 7 to 8 years and due to this acquaintance, he gave hand loan of Rs.40,000/- to the accused in September, 2006 in his house. It is his case that the amount was to be returned within 4 to 5 months but the amount was not returned and so the complainant started making demand of the amount to the accused. It is his case that on 01/03/2007 when he demanded mon...
Vishnu S/O. Satva Bade and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-19-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, both the sides are heard for final disposal. 2. This Court has perused copies of charge-sheet and the papers of investigation and also copies of other documents with regard to the dispute, which was going on between original complainant and some of the petitioners. The proceeding is filed for quashing of the criminal case bearing R.C.C.No.95/2011, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wadvani, District Beed. The chargesheet is filed against the petitioners for offences punishable under sections 420, 471, 499, 500, 504, 506, 191, 192, 193 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The copy of order made by J.M.F.C. on Exh. 83 is produced and it shows that application filed by accused for discharge is partly allowed and the petitioners are already discharged of the offences punishable under sections 191, 192, 193 of I.P.C. Thus, present proceeding is in respect of remaining offences. 3. A private complaint was filed by resp...
Kiran Natthu Patil and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. R.S. Shinde for the appellants, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. By the present appeal, filed by the appellants i.e. original accused nos.1 to 3, they have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 29-12-2004, rendered by the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 87/2003, thereby convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for three years, and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for nine months, each, and also convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for five years, and to pay fine of Rs. 7,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple simple imprisonment for one year and three months, each. 3. The appellants are hereinaft...