Ranjit Rajan Calangutkar And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.801 OF 2017 Shri Ranjit Rajan Calangutkar and ors.
....Applicants/Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and anr.
....Respondents Ms. Megha S. Bajoria i/b.Mr. K. S. Patil, advocate for the applicants. Mr. Ranjeet Patil, advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2017.
P. C. :
Heard Ms. Bajoria, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Saste, learned APP for the State.
The writ petition was filed for quashing the proceedings of the criminal case arising out of FIR bearing CR No.330 of 2014 registered with Amboli Police Station, Mumbai, at the instance of the respondent No.2 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, in the prayer clause of the petition, the proceedings of the criminal case was Shubhada S Kadam 1/3
incorrectly typed as MCA No.104/DV/2015 instead of correct number being "CC No.2620/PW/2016". By an order dated 10th March, 2017, this Court allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer clause (b) and thereby quashed the proceedings of the subject criminal case. 3.
Later on, the parties realized that the number of the criminal case was incorrectly typed in the prayer clause (b) of the petition though the number of the FIR was correctly mentioned. This mistake was further carried in the order dated 10th March, 2017, by which, the writ petition was disposed off. The petitioner has, accordingly, taken out this criminal application to amend the petition so as to correct the number of the criminal proceedings in the concerned prayer clause. 4.
Both the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioners and respondent does not dispute that the correct number of the criminal case arising out of the subject FIR is CC No.2620/PW/2016 and, therefore, we grant leave to amend the petition. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week from today. The criminal application, accordingly, stands disposed off.
5.
In the light of the above order, the number of the criminal Shubhada S Kadam 2/3
case appearing in the 3rd line of the reproduced prayer clause (b) in paragraph 7 (i) of the order dated 10th March, 2017, is substituted and read as "CC No.2620/PW/2016".
It is also pointed out that in paragraph 4, 2nd line, page, 2, the number of the petition pending before the Family Court is incorrectly transcribed as "F-509 of 2016", whereas the correct number is "F-519 of 2016". Thus, the number of the said petition be substituted and read as "Petition No. F-519 of 2016".
The order dated 10th March, 2017, stands corrected accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 3/3