Rajesh Vasant Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.428 OF 2008.

¶3

Rajesh Vasant Pardeshi.

¶4

..Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra.

¶7

2. Shri Sadashiv Nanasaheb Bhagat.

¶8

3. Shri Sanjay Digambar Sapkal.

¶9

4. Shri Balkrishna Namdeorao Kadam.

¶10

5. Shri Prakash Maruti Sanas...Respondents.

¶11

Mr.Sudhir Hardikar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶12

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.
DATE : 17th September 2008.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶14

1.The submissions of the learned counsel appearing
for the parties were heard on the last date. It will be
necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.

¶15

2.The challenge in this petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to orders passed by the
learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge on applications

¶16

at Exhibits 48 and 49. The second prayer is for
transfer of the pending session case. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner has not pressed the
said prayer for transfer. The petitioner is the

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

original complainant and the second to fifth respondents
are the original accused. The petitioner had filed a
private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class against the second to firth respondents
alleging therein commission of offences under sections
323, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The F.I.R was also lodged against the petitioner
alleging commission of offences under section 353 and
section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. On private
complaint filed by the petitioner, process was issued.
The case based on the F.I.R was committed to the Court
of Sessions. The said private complaint was transferred
to the Sessions Court for hearing the same alongwith the
Sessions case.

¶19

3.On 16th October 2007, the petitioner applied to
the Sessions Court for issuing witness summons to
concerned doctor of the Sasoon Hospital and the
concerned officer of the Samarth police station. The
said application was allowed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge on 16th October 2007. On 14th November
2007, an application was made for re-issuing the summons
to the said witnesses as the witnesses did not appear.
The said application was allowed. The petitioner
applied on 30th January 2008 vide application at Exhibit

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

48 before the Sessions Court for issuing non-bailable
warrant to the witnesses. On the said application made
at Exhibit 48, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions
Judge passed an order on 30th January 2008 closing the
case for recording the statements and arguments. He
observed that ample opportunity was made available to
the petitioner to lead evidence. Another application at
Exhibit 49 was made by the petitioner on the same day
which was ordered to be filed by the learned Additional
Adhoc Sessions Judge on 30th January 2008.

¶22

4.The submission of the leaned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken
steps to serve witness summons to the witnesses and
therefore, if the said witnesses did not appear, the
petitioner cannot be blamed. The learned counsel for
the petitioner invited my attention to the observations
made in paragraph 1 of the order dated 30th January 2008
below Exhibit 48. He submitted that a very harsh view
has been taken by the learned Judge by rejecting the
application at Exhibit 48. The learned counsel
appearing for the second to fifth respondents supported
the impugned order and submitted that no interference
was called for as the case is being delayed thereby
causing prejudice to the accused.

¶23

: 4 :

¶24

5.I have considered the submissions.The

¶25

impression one gets from the order dated 30th January
2008 is that the learned Judge was disturbed by the
alleged arrogant behaviour of an advocate appearing for
the petitioner. Perusal of the record shows that on
16th October 2007, the learned Judge had himself issued
witness summons to the doctor as well as the officer of
the concerned police station. On 14th November 2007,
the learned Judge himself allowed summons to be
reissued. On 30th January 2008, an application was made
at Exhibit 48 for issuing non-bailable warrant to the
said witnesses as they did not appear. In the impugned
order, the learned Judge has observed that on two
occasions the witness summons was served, but the matter
was not prosecuted by the petitioner. The leaned Judge
has noted that the other sessions case was already
adjourned for arguments and judgment.

¶26

6.If witness summons were issued and the witnesses
did not appear, no fault could have been found with the
petitioner. In my view, a very harsh order has been
passed by the learned Judge by rejecting the application
at Exhibit 48 and the said order deserves to be quashed
and set aside.

¶27

: 5 :

¶28

7.Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶29

(1) The impugned order dated 30th January 2008
passed below application at Exhibit 48 is
quashed and set aside.

¶30

(2) The parties are directed to appear before
the Sessions Court on 6th October 2008. On that
day, the learned Judge will issue a fresh
witness summons to the two witnesses, namely the
concerned doctor of the Sasoon General Hospital
and Shri Mohite, police officer attached to
Samarth police station. The petitioner will
take all possible steps to ensure that the
witness summonses are duly served.

¶31

(3) The pending case will be disposed of as
expeditiously as possible.

¶32

(4) All contentions of parties on merits are
expressly kept open.

¶33

(A.S.Oka,J)

Rajesh Vasant Pardeshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Vasant Pardeshi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noor Mohd. Shah Vs M/S. Parshwa Corporation and Anr.

Dilip Madhukar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mangilal Sohanlal Jain and Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Ramesh Shankar Kantebet Vs D.S.@ Dinkar Shivram Mule and Ors.

Special Recovery and Sales Officer of Dnyandeep Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Kurla Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

C.K. Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.