Bombay High Court
WP/2765/2008 of PRITHVIRAJ CHAMPALAL BAFNA Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. on 26 December 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.WRIT PETITION NO. 2765 OF 2008 Mr. Prithviraj Champalal Bafna .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. --- Mr. A.M.Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRI.WRIT PETITION NO. 2765 OF 2008
Mr. Prithviraj Champalal Bafna.. Petitioner.V/s.The State of Maharashtra & Anr... Respondents.--- Mr. A.M.Saraogi for the Petitioner.Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State.Mr. Shriniwas Singh for the original Complainant.
-----
CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.(Vacation Court)DATED : 26th DECEMBER,2008.
P.C.:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This application is filed under section 482 of theCr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal case no. 114/PW of2005, pending on the file of the learned 37th AdditionalMetropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Esplanade, Mumbai.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Saraogi, appearing forthe petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Shriniwas Singhappearing for the complainant, respondent no.2 and thelearned APP for the respondent no.1/ State.
-: 2 :-
3. The learned advocates for the parties and thelearned APP would submit that when the complainant does notwish to proceed with the criminal trial it will be aredundant formality to keep the matter pending. Thelearned APP has no objection for quashing of the criminalcase as the same is settled between the complainant and theaccused.
4. FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2 on 29th May,2003. It appears that the applicant allegedly indulged inthe sale of wrist watches by using the trade mark of therespondent no.2. In other words, the spurious goods werebeing sold and therefore, the criminal action was taken.
5. Considering the fact that the complainant and theaccused have settled the matter, it is explicit that thetrial is unlikely to be fruit bearing. It would be futile,therefore, to allow continuation of the trial inasmuch asit will cause wastage of judicial time and the time of theparties and the witnesses. It appears, prima facie, thatsuch a trial is required to be quashed, having regard tothe further development. The respondent no.2 is ready tofile written pursis in this court today itself to theeffect that he has no further grievance and criminal casemay be quashed. If such pursis is filed today and ifapplicant files an undertaking to the effect that no such spurious /fake goods will be sold any more then criminalcase No. 114/PW of 2005 pending before the MetropolitanMagistrate’s Court be deemed as quashed.
6. With the above direction, the petition is disposedof.
(V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. )
.....