Dismissed

Mahadeo Gulabrao Dhete and 7 Others. v. Mahadeo Kisan Javkar

Bombay HC19 Jun 2007APPLN/1347/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order issuing process is revisable and not a fit case for Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction. The criminal application was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a revision application, condoning delay, and the interim order was extended for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file revision; interim order continued for six weeks.

Mahadeo Gulabrao Dhete and 7 Others. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR

¶3

Criminal Application No.1347/2005 (Mahadeo Gulabrao Dhote and 7 others Vs. Mahadeo Kisan Javkar)

¶4

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram,

¶5

appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders.

¶6

CORAM : A.P. Lavande, J . Dated : June 19, 2007

¶7

Heard Mr. Damle, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Kshirsagar, learned counsel holding for Advocate Tathod, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶8

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicants challenge the order issuing process passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon in Misc. Cri. Case No. 70/2004. By the impugned order process has been issued against the applicants under Sections 294, 420, 426, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Bharat S. Dahanukar Vs.

¶10

¶11

State of Maharashtra (2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 859) learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the order issuing process is revisable and, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to approach this Court directly invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶12

Per contra, Mr. Damle, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in a fit case this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order issuing process and this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶13

This Court issued Rule in the matter on 15.6.2005 and granted interim relief to the applicants and at that time the respondent was not heard.

¶14

In Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam and another (1999 Cri. L.J. 1620) the Apex Court reversed an order passed by this Court holding that order issuing process

¶15

¶16

was an interlocutory order and, held that revision was maintainable against an order issuing process. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Bharat S. Dahanukar's case (supra) has held that ordinarily a party aggrieved by an order issuing process must approach the Sessions Court and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised very sparingly.

¶17

In view of clear ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to relegate the applicants to the remedy of revision. Since the application was admitted by this Court on 15.6.2005, it would be just and proper to condone delay in filing the revision application against the impugned order provided the applicants file revision application within a reasonable time.

¶18

At this stage, Mr. Damle, learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave to withdraw the application with liberty to file

¶19

¶20

revision application against impugned order. Mr. Damle further submitted that having regard to the fact that the application was admitted by this Court on 15/6/2005, the delay in filing revision application be condoned. Mr. Damle further states that the applicants shall file revision application against the impugned order within a period of four weeks from today.

¶21

In view of the above, the prayer of the applicants for withdrawal of the application is allowed with liberty to the applicants to file revision application against impugned order dated 4.2.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon to the concerned Sessions Judge. The applicants shall file revision application within a period of four weeks from today. Learned Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge to whom the matter may be allotted shall condone the delay and decide the revision application in accordance with law. Interim order granted by this Court on 15/6/2005 shall continue for a period of six

¶22

¶23

weeks.

¶24

Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Mahadeo Gulabrao Dhete and 7 Others. v. Mahadeo Kisan Javkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeo Gulabrao Dhete and 7 Others. v. Mahadeo Kisan Javkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samir S/O Anandrao Kshirsagar Vs the State of Mah. Thru P.S.O. P.S. Ganeshpeth

Sandeep S/O Shankar Sorte and Anor. Vs the State of Mah.Thr.Pso,Sakkardara,Nagpur

Nandkishor S/O Rambhau Choudhary Vs Balabhau S/O Ramchandraji Ganorkar

Raghunath S/O Ganesh Thosar Vs Santoshi S/O Radhavallabh Purohit

Pandurang Atmaram Sahane and Another Vs State of Mah.Thr.Pso Buldhana

Sunil Vasantrao Chopde Vs the State of Mah,Thr.Pso Buldana