Dismissed

Anil Nivruti Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2010WP/334/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Writ Petition requesting exemption from personal presence for certain accused applicants. The court directed the Magistrate to expedite the trial and grant personal exemption to specific applicants unless their presence is necessary for identification or recording statements under Section 313 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from personal presence granted to applicants 3 to 7 unless necessary for identification or recording statements under Section 313 CrPC.

Anil Nivruti Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1) CRI.WP. 334.2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 334 OF 2010

¶4

Anil Nivruti Jadhav and ors. .. Petitioners

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.B. Jadhav, Advocate
for the Petitioners

¶8

Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State

¶9

Mr. Patel Shaikh Ashpak Taher, Advocate for the
respondent no.2

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2010

¶12

ORAL ORDER:-

¶13

1. Heard.

¶14

investigation. The applicants are original accused

¶15

against whom offences under section 498-A, 323, 504

¶16

and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code are
registered. There are statements of witnesses
recorded during the course of investigation. The
respondent no.2 narrated that she was ill treated and

¶17

subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the applicants.

¶18

(2) CRI.WP. 334.2010

¶19

3.Learned counsel Mr. Dhorde submits that

¶20

applicants no. 3 to 7 are not concerned with the
incident of matrimonial cruelty. He points out that
other applicants are women and young brother of the
applicant no.1. It appears that the applicants no. 5

¶21

to 7 are unmarried and married sisters of the
applicant no.1 and are roped in though they are not
residing together with him.

¶22

4. Still, however, at such a premature stage

¶23

the question of complicity and common intention of

¶24

the applicants cannot be determined. There appears

¶25

no substantial reason to stall the trail at this
premature stage. Hence, the Application is

¶26

dismissed. However, the learned Magistrate shall
expedite the hearing of the Criminal Case and make
serious endeavour to dispose of the same at earliest.

¶27

The learned Magistrate shall also grant personal
exemption to the applicants 3 to 7 during the course

¶28

of trial unless their presence is found necessary for

¶29

the purpose of identification or for the purpose of

¶30

(3) CRI.WP. 334.2010

¶31

recording their statements under section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, by invoking powers under

¶32

section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as and
when the exemption application is moved by them.

¶33

 Sd/-

¶34

 [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]

¶35

arp

Anil Nivruti Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Nivruti Jadhav and Ors. v. the State of Mah 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

Premchand Bansilal Kucheria Vs Shivdas Sonajikokane and Anr.

State of Mah Vs Ravindra Anant Suryawanshi and Anr.

Sunil Vishnu Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajkumar Hiralal Dhotre Vs Dattatraya Murlidhar Vaidhya and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Ambadas Ruprao Tayade

Raosaheb Madhav Avahad and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.