{"id":94968,"date":"2011-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011"},"modified":"2015-11-29T21:20:39","modified_gmt":"2015-11-29T15:50:39","slug":"adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: N.D. Deshpande<\/div>\n
                                                        1                                     apl124-11\n\n    jpc\/-\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                         \n                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.  124  OF  2011\n\n    Adwait Surendra Aatre                                            .. Applicant\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n    Versus \n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n    The State of Maharashtra\n    and others                          ig                           .. Respondents\n\n    Mr.Parvej Menon i\/by Majeed Menon  & Associate for the applicant\n                                      \n    Mrs. M. R.Tidke, APP for the State\n    Mr. Ravi Mishra for Respondent No.2\n\n                                         CORAM  : N. D. DESHPANDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                            DATE   :  7  April, 2011
\n                                                       th<\/p>\n
    ORAL ORDER:\n<\/p>\n
    1.           Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing at the <\/p>\n
    stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
    3.           The   present   application   is   filed   under   Section   482   of   the <\/p>\n
    Criminal   Procedure   Code,   1973,   invoking   inherent   powers   of   this <\/p>\n
    Court in the matter of criminal justice, for quashing     of the F.I.R. <\/p>\n
\n\n    being   C.R.   No.   107   of   2010   registered     by   the   Kherwadi   Police \n\n    Station,   of   offences u\/s 279, 338   read with     134 (a), (b) of the \n\n\n\n\n                                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:10:10 :::<\/span>\n                                                         2                                     apl124-11\n\n<\/pre>\n
    Motor Vehicles Act against the applicant, on a complaint of one Mr. <\/p>\n
    Nitin Satish Kale.\n<\/p>\n
    4.             The   applicant   is   a   student   aged   23   years,   having     valid <\/p>\n
    driving licence and it is alleged that while he was driving a   motor <\/p>\n
    vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio),   it gave    a dash to the complainant on <\/p>\n
    a   road and thereby   caused some minor injuries  to his   leg and <\/p>\n
    shoulder.   The matter   was therefore, reported to Kherwadi Police <\/p>\n
    station,   which   was   subsequently   inquired     and   investigated.\n<\/p>\n
    Concerned   Investigating   Officer   of   the   Kherwadi   Police   station   is <\/p>\n
    present.     He   informed   that     investigation   is   complete   and   charge <\/p>\n
    sheet is ready  for filing.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           It is  admitted that the offences,   as per the investigation and <\/p>\n
    the     charge-sheet,   are   stated     to   be     mainly   u\/s   279   and   338   of <\/p>\n
    I.P.C.   Learned counsel   for the applicant- accused relied   on the <\/p>\n
    affidavit   filed   in   his   favour     along   with   this   application   for <\/p>\n
    compounding  of the offences registered  against the  applicant  as <\/p>\n
    mentioned above.  Learned counsel for the complainant also agreed <\/p>\n
    for compounding of the offence when asked.  However, it has been <\/p>\n
    stated that such compounding is not possible at this stage  because <\/p>\n
    the charge-sheet is yet to be filed and one of the  offences  being u\/s <\/p>\n
    279 of I.P.C.,  is non-compoundable in law although it is punishable <\/p>\n
                                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                         3                                     apl124-11<\/p>\n
    up  to six  months    imprisonment only,   besides     it is  bailable and <\/p>\n
    triable by the magistrate.   Another major offence u\/s 338 of IPC   is <\/p>\n
    no doubt compoundable, bailable  and triable by any magistrate and <\/p>\n
    punishable upto  two years  imprisonment.  It  can be compounded <\/p>\n
    by   the complainant who is injured (victim) with the permission of the <\/p>\n
    Court. Therefore, there is  an apprehension in the mind of  both, the <\/p>\n
    applicant\/accused     and complainant, that even by approaching the <\/p>\n
    trial   Court,   they   may   not   be     allowed     compounding   the   entire <\/p>\n
    proceeding   because   of     inclusion   of   section     279   I.P.C   which   is <\/p>\n
    stated to be non-compoundable.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           Relevant Sections 279 and Section 338 of I.P.C.  read thus:\n<\/p>\n
                 “279. Rash driving or riding on a public way._  whoever  <\/p>\n
               drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so
\n               rash or negligent as to endanger  human life, or to be likely to
\n               cause  hurt or injury to any other person, shall be  punished  <\/p>\n
               with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
\n               extend   to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
\n               thousand rupees or with both:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Classification of Offence : The offence under this section is
\n               cognizable,   bailable,  non  compoundable  and   triable  by  any
\n               magistrate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               338. Causing     grievous hurt by act endangering life of
\n               personal safety or  others._ Whoever causes grievous hurt
\n               to any person by doing any act so  rashly or negligently as to  <\/p>\n
                                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                         4                                     apl124-11<\/p>\n
               endanger human life, or the personal safety of   others, shall  <\/p>\n
               be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
\n               which may extend to two  years or with fine which may extend  <\/p>\n
               to one  thousand rupees, or with both:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Classification of Offence._ The offence under this section is
\n               cognizable,   bailable,   compoundable   with   permission   of   the <\/p>\n
               court   before   which   any   prosecution   of   such   offence     is
\n               pending and triable by any magistrate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.           After minute reading of both these sections,   it is seen that <\/p>\n
    the alleged act of rash and negligent driving,   endangering human <\/p>\n
    life, is   required  to be proved as necessary ingredient to constitute <\/p>\n
    offence u\/s 279 I.P.C.   and by  allegedly  doing any  act   rashly or <\/p>\n
    negligently   as to endangering the human life are   also     the same <\/p>\n
    ingredients  to constitute  the offence u\/s 338 I.P.C. Therefore, such <\/p>\n
    ingredients  which are common, cannot be separately dealt with. The <\/p>\n
    requirement of offence u\/s 338 is all   that is   covered in section 279 <\/p>\n
    of IPC.  As specifically mentioned  in the Code, when the offence u\/s <\/p>\n
    338 is compoundable, there cannot   be any impediment or   bar to <\/p>\n
    hold that the alleged offence u\/s 279 of I.P.C.  read with 338  of IPC <\/p>\n
    could  also be compounded.  It is not  a different act complained of to <\/p>\n
    constitute   a separate offence   but are the essential ingredients of <\/p>\n
    section 338 of I.P.C. in the present case.   In short, the offence u\/s <\/p>\n
    338 I.P.C. is     compoundable with permission of   the Court, which, <\/p>\n
    amounts to acquittal.   After such compounding with the consent of <\/p>\n
                                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       5                                     apl124-11<\/p>\n
    the  aggrieved  party-injured  complainant,    the  accused    cannot  be <\/p>\n
    prosecuted   or   tried   for   the   same   act   which   are   complained   of   by <\/p>\n
    different title   or head u\/s 279 of   I.P.C.   Though   it may not be a <\/p>\n
    second   trial,     but     the   accused,   who   is   once   acquitted   from   the <\/p>\n
    charge u\/s 338 IPC upon compounding of the  charge based on the <\/p>\n
    same evidence, would be vexed, if he is directed to  under go further <\/p>\n
    trial u\/s 279  for lesser punishment. Thus, by the  present application, <\/p>\n
    the applicant has made out   a case for compounding of   offence.\n<\/p>\n
    However, the present application  is filed by the accused alone and <\/p>\n
    not   by   the   complainant   who   is   the   complainant   since     aggrieved <\/p>\n
    person in a complaint case, and therefore he alone has a right to <\/p>\n
    compounding.   Merely because the complainant  is made as party-\n<\/p>\n
    respondent no.2 and having   filed his    affidavit   in support of the <\/p>\n
    application would not be enough. The matter needs to be verified  by <\/p>\n
    the court for compounding, which is like a compromise for desired <\/p>\n
    order or judgment  of acquittal by the Court so as to put an end to the <\/p>\n
    proceedings.   Both the parties   are, therefore,   directed to appear <\/p>\n
    before the  trial Court because this Court  would not record evidence <\/p>\n
    or   verify   compromises.   It   is   the       trial   court   who   is   competent   to <\/p>\n
    record     evidence   and   verify   the     compromise   for   compounding,   if <\/p>\n
    satisfied.  After compounding of the offence  u\/s 338 of I.P.C. which <\/p>\n
    amounts to acquittal of  accused in law, in my opinion in the present <\/p>\n
    case,  such charge sheet u\/s 279 of I.P.C alone would  sustain in law <\/p>\n
                                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                         6                                     apl124-11<\/p>\n
    for further continuation of proceedings or  trial on the basis of same <\/p>\n
    evidence for section 338 of I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
    8.             Since   both   the   parties     have     submitted   that   the   charge <\/p>\n
    sheet is ready and it is going to be filed in the next week, I therefore, <\/p>\n
    direct the parties to appear before the learned Magistrate’s   Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Liberty is given to  both the parties  to file  a joint purshis\/application <\/p>\n
    for compounding of the offence u\/s 338 IPC.  So far as Section 279 <\/p>\n
    IPC is concerned, that would  give rise to some difficulty despite the <\/p>\n
    observation made by this Court and the parties would be harassed <\/p>\n
    and   troubled.   In   order   to   avoid   that,   I   am   satisfied   that   once   the <\/p>\n
    offence u\/s 338 IPC is compounded, nothing survives for trying the <\/p>\n
    offence u\/s 279 IPC. The FIR or Charge sheet for additional section <\/p>\n
    279 would be meaningless when the cognizace is taken  u\/s 338 of <\/p>\n
    IPC.     The     proceedings   for   the     offence   u\/s     279   IPC,   therefore <\/p>\n
    deserves to be  quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           In that view of the matter,  the application is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    10.             The FIR, the charge sheet and the proceedings u\/s 279 is <\/p>\n
    liable to be  quashed and accordingly it is quashed and set aside to <\/p>\n
    that extent.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:10 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                      7                                     apl124-11\n\n    11.         The   parties   are   directed   to     appear   before   the   learned \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                      \n<\/pre>\n
    Magistrate   in the next week. The parties shall be at liberty to file an <\/p>\n
    application for compounding   of the offence u\/s 338 I.P.C. and the <\/p>\n
    same shall be verified and decided by the   trial Court in the light of <\/p>\n
    the observations made herein above.\n<\/p>\n
    12.         The application is accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ig           ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )\n                                   \n        \n     \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:10:10 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011 Bench: N.D. Deshpande 1 apl124-11 jpc\/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 124 OF 2011 Adwait Surendra Aatre .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ig .. Respondents Mr.Parvej Menon […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94968","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAdwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-29T15:50:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-29T15:50:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1327,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-29T15:50:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-29T15:50:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-29T15:50:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011"},"wordCount":1327,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011","name":"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-29T15:50:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adwait-surendra-aatre-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Adwait Surendra Aatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94968","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94968"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94968\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94968"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94968"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94968"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}