Bombay High CourtAPL/93/2016others disposed off

Abdul Hamid S/O Rehman Siddique And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Mankapur, Nagpur And Another

2016-11-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Kum. Justice Indira Jain2 pages

1 apl93.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 93 OF 2016 (ABDUL HAMID REHMAN SIDDIQUE & OTH ..VS..STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS MANKAPUR, & ANR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.K. Sabahatullah, Advocate for Applicants. Shri V.P. Maldhure, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri Tanveer Iqbal, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2016.

In the morning it was pointed out that the matter is amicably settled. As we felt that the compromise was being forced upon the complainant, we adjourned the matter to second half. In second half, we find that there is some difference in the name of applicant No.1 who is stated to be father-in-law and the person mentioned as father-in-law in F.I.R. Similarly, name of applicant No.2-sister-in-law does not appear in the F.I.R. In prayer clause number of F.I.R. challenged is stated to be 32 of 2015. This Court on 7th March, 2016 granted interim order and directed the respondent not to file charge-sheet.

The learned A.P.P. submits that correct number of the F.I.R. is 52 of 2015 and because of error the charge-sheet is actually presented to competent Court on 18th March, 2016 itself.

2 apl93.16 In this situation, as the charge-sheet is presented, without observing on merits of the controversy and keeping all the rival contentions open as also with liberty to the petitioner to take such other steps as may be available in law, the application is disposed of.

JUDGE JUDGE RRaut..