Dismissed

Manikantan K. P. Nair v. Dnyandeo Dattatray Abitkar and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2009APPP/168/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Application challenging acquittal in a cheque-dishonour case. Citing repeated dismissals of earlier applications for want of prosecution and the applicant's non-appearance, the Court held that the application deserved dismissal to prevent latching.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No. 168 of 2009 is dismissed and disposed of.

------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court’s or Judge’s orders appearances,Court ’s : orders or directions : and Registrar’s orders. : ------------------------------------------------------------ Ms Sangita Musle, for the applicant. Mr S.R. Shinde, A.P.P. for State. Mr S.S. Redij for Respondent No.1. CORAM: A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 16TH APRIL,2009. P.C.:-

1. None present for the applicant original complainant in the closed proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1-original accused is present and informed the Court regarding earlier orders passed. It appears that Criminal Application No. 3102 of 2006 was

preferred by the present applicant for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. There was delay in filing such a leave application. The said leave application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, belatedly another Criminal Application No. 98 of 2007 was filed without any application for delay condonation in restoration of earlier dismissed leave application. The said application No. 98 of 2007 was also dismissed. Hence, another Criminal Application No. 448 of 2008 was filed again belatedly. It was also dismissed for non prosecution. Hence, the present application came to be filed.

2. The above chronology of earlier dismissal of different applications indicates the latches on the part of the applicant. Today, also none present for the applicant. Hence, the said application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, Criminal Application No. 168 of 2009 stands dismissed and disposed of.

Manikantan K. P. Nair v. Dnyandeo Dattatray Abitkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikantan K. P. Nair v. Dnyandeo Dattatray Abitkar and Anr.

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

Redington (India) Ltd. Vs Minicomp Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Govind Yeshwant Adsule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sangalya Chunya Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imtiyaj Ejaj Sayyad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maruti Dondiram Pawar Vs Ramdas Dadu Nirmale and Anr.

Pramodkumar Chemarayan Pande Vs the State of Maharashtra