Dismissed

Sambhaji Kirba Bhandare and Ors. v. Vykanti Kmariba Boyal and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2011APPLN/1699/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal application challenging the issuance of process. The Court held that subordinate courts are competent to examine the veracity of the FIR and that the High Court is not justified in interfering in the absence of a prima facie case. The Court directed the learned First Class Magistrate to dispose of the case within six months and granted exemption from personal at

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; process to proceed; exemption from personal attendance granted for future dates; disposal within six months directed.

Sambhaji Kirba Bhandare and Ors. Vs Vykanti Kmariba… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

CR.APL.NO.1699/2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1699 OF 2010

¶5

1. Sambhaji s/o Irba Bhandare, Age 51 yrs. Occ. service, r/o 19 Melghat, Sana Colony, Parwane Nagar, Tarode (Kh).

¶6

2. Renukabai w/o Sambhaji Bhandare, Age 49 yrs., Occ: Household, r/o as above.

¶7

3. Sunil s/o Sambhaji Bhandare, Age: 26 yrs. Occ: Education R/o. At present N.K.J. Ayurvedic Medical College & P.G.Centre, Bidar ( K.S.)

¶8

4. Sushil s/o Sambhaji Bhandare, Age: 21 yrs. Occ: Education, r/o. At present Arumpur, Tq. Biolali, Dist. Nanded.

¶9

5. Soni @ Swati d/o Sambhaji Bhandare, Age: 20 yrs. Occ: Education, r/o. 19 Melghat, Sana Colony, Parwane Nagar, Tarode (Kh.)

¶10

...APPLICANTS
(ORGL.ACCUSED NO.
1 to 5)

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

1. Vyankati s/o Mariba Boyal, Age: 46 yrs. Occ: Agril., r/o Indiranagar, Dharmabad, Tq.Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded.

¶13

2 CR.APL.NO.1699/2010

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

(ORGL.COMPLAINANT)

¶16

2. The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, Law and Justice Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶17

...

¶18

Mr.P.M.Gaikwad, Adv., for the petitioners.
Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State.
Mr.N.R.Jamdhade, Adv., for respondent no.1.

¶19

...

¶20

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶21

DATE:7/1/2011

¶22

***

¶23

PER COURT :

¶24

1.Heard extensively. The applicants
submit that it is a case of sheer abuse by
launching FIR at the behest of respondent no.1,
to avenge a case filed by sister of applicant
Sambhaji against respondent no.1 Vyankati.
Several submissions are advanced by Mr.Gaikwad to
impress that at the relevant time, the applicant
no.1 Sambhaji having attended his Government duty

¶25

at Aurangabad on 5th Sept.,2009, was on the way

¶26

to Nanded and could not visit the place of
offense at Dharmabad in short duration. To
substantiate his contention, letters and details
of the work-sheets are enclosed. He also submits

¶27

3 CR.APL.NO.1699/2010

¶28

that the applicant no.3 Sunil is taking medical
education at Bider while applicant no.4 Sushil is
at Arumpur, Tq.Biloli. The applicant no.5 is
female, she is taking education. He repeatedly
canvassed that it is a false prosecution, to
ensure that the applicant withdraws the case
against respondent no.1 initiated by sister of
applicant no.1.

¶29

2.Learned Counsel appearing for respondent
no.1 submits that the challenge to the issuance
of process is not maintainable in terms of
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as alternate remedy is
available to the applicants before competent
forum.

¶30

3.At this stage of the matter, the
assertions that the applicant no.1 was on duty
and in the process was in journey on the alleged
date of the incident cannot be gone into. It may
be that the prosecution is false, however, the
details and precise narration in the report,
prima facie, illustrate the case. This Court is
not required to have a roving inquiry in the
matter. The scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has
its in-built limitations. No case in terms of
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to exercise such
discretion is projected, however, the interests
of the present applicants can be protected by
issuance of direction to the learned Judicial

¶31

CR.APL.NO.1699/2010

¶32

¶33

Magistrate, First Class.

¶34

4.Hence order:

¶35

(a)Criminal Application is dismissed.
Learned Judge seized with SCC No.686/2009 shall
ensure to dispose of the same within a period of
six months from receiving communication.

¶36

(b)Consideringthestatusof
accused/applicantsherein,theirpersonal
attendance shall not be insisted upon. Separate
application on each of the date will be filed,
seeking exemption by the accused herein and the
learned Judge shall, without any demur, entertain
such application. It is only in the event of
emergent situation, if the presence of the
applicants herein is required, it will be so
communicated well advance to the applicants
herein.

¶37

With the above result, application disposed
of.

¶38

(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE

¶39

agp/1699-10crapl

¶40

5 CR.APL.NO.1699/2010

Sambhaji Kirba Bhandare and Ors. v. Vykanti Kmariba Boyal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhaji Kirba Bhandare and Ors. v. Vykanti Kmariba Boyal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadashiv Vitthalrao Ambhore Vs Arunabai Sadashiv Ambhore and Others

Arjun Sadashiv Kale and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Arunabai Sadashiv Ambhore and Ors. Vs Sadashiv Vitthalrao Ambhore and Ors.

Ravan Maroti Jamadar Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchants Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vithal Gulabrao Maske Vs Hanuman Shrihari Yeole and Ors.