Dismissed

Ronald Rao S/O Padmanabhan Rao v. Parth Joydevkumar Majumdar and 2 Oths

Bombay HC26 Sept 2012APL/198/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the application for permission to prosecute a criminal revision appeal following the death of the principal applicant. It also summarily dismissed the underlying criminal revision application for condonation of delay, finding the explanation regarding divergent legal opinions vague and insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Permission to prosecute APL No. 198/2011 was denied and Cri. APL No. 198/2011 was summarily dismissed.

Ronald Rao S/O Padmanabhan Rao Vs Parth… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/4

¶2

26.09.appp.1027.12

¶3

fIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATRION (APPP) NO.1027/2012

¶4

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL ) NO. 198/2011

¶6

(Ronald Rao s/o Padmanabhan Rao vs. Parth Joydevkumar Majumdar and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Mr. R.C. Madkholkar, Adv.for applicant Mr S.M.Patrikar,Adv.for Respondent No.1 Mr J B Jaiswal, APP for respondents

¶8

CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 26^th September, 2012.

¶9

APPP: 1027/2012:

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The applicant-Ronald Rao has filed Criminal Application (APL) No.198/2011 as a power of attorney holder of Rev. M.S. Daniel. The Original Application No. 198/2011 impugns the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting Misc. Criminal Application No. 78/2010 of applicant-Ronald for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Application against the order passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate u/s. 145 (5) of Cr.P.C. vacating thereby the preliminary order passed by the said Magistrate u/s 145 (1) of Cr.P.C.

¶12

At this stage, it may be mentioned here that an Application was made before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the applicant against the respondent-Parth Joydevkumar Majumdar for initiating proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. A preliminary order was issued by the Sub-Divisional

¶13

2/4

¶14

26.09.appp.1027.12

¶15

Magistrate. It may also be stated here that an FIR was lodged by the applicant being FIR No.177/2008 at Kalmeshwar Police Station for the offences punishable u/ss. 143, 341, 447, 448 and 506 of IPC against the respondent -Parth and others. The said FIR was investigated by the Police and “C” summary was submitted in the Court of of Judicial Magisrrate. The “C” summary has been accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Following the acceptance of “C” summary by the learned Judicial Magistrate, when the matter was taken up by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he vacated the preliminary order and came to the conclusion that breach of peace did not exist and that the dispute between the parties needed to be resolved by a competent civil Court.

¶16

It is this order of the learned SDM which was impugned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Since the Revision Application was delayed by 276 days, an Application was filed for condonation of delay. The same came to be rejected by the learned Sessiosn Judge on the ground that the delay had not been properly explained. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has taken care of the arguments and submissions made on behalf of the applicant that there were divergent views of two sets of lawyers and, therefore, there was delay of 276 days. In the opinion of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the reasons given by the applicant were not satisfactory and therefore, delay was not condoned.

¶17

As already stated, the said order of rejection of delay condonation Application is the subject-matter of the main Application i.e. APL No. 198/2011. During pendency of application, the original applicant before the SDM, Rev. M.S.

¶18

3/4

¶19

26.09.appp.1027.12

¶20

Daniel is reported dead. There is no dispute regarding the same.

¶21

The applicant - Mr. Ronald Padmanabhan Rao by present Application No.1027/2011, has moved this Court for permitting him to prosecute APL No. 198/2011. It is submitted by him that he has moved the Charity Commissioner to reconstitute the Board of Trustees and including him in the Board of Trustees. The said Application is pending before the Charity Commissioner.

¶22

The learned APP Mr J B Jasiwal has submitted that the applicant has no locus standi as the original applicant on whose behalf the present applicant- Ronald was appearing as power of attorney, is dead.

¶23

In the first place, the applicant has lost authority due to death of Rev. Daniel. Secondly, the applicant was not present on the scene of the incident when the alleged breach of peace had occurred. In view thereof the applicant, in fact, has no authority to continue with this proceedings. It appears to me that the applicant is interested in these proceedings for some ulterior motive. It also needs to be stated here that the property in question is in possession of respondent-Parth Majumdar. The present applicant or original applicant M.S. Daniel had never made any attempt to recover the possession of property by filing a competent suit in the competent Court. No attempt was ever made for seeking declaration in respect of tittle over the property. In the circumstances, the present proceedings do not appear to be genuine and are being dragged with some ulterior motive. I

¶24

4/4

¶25

26.09.appp.1027.12

¶26

do not find any substance in the Application, APL No. 1027/2011 is, therefore, dismissed.

¶27

CRI. APL. 198/2011 :

¶28

Since the Application of the power of attorney holder-Mr Ronald Rao being Application No.1027/2011 is dismissed, the present proceeding, in fact, do not survive. However, even if the application is considered on merits, I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur. 276 days’ delay is a huge delay and it needed to be explained properly. Vague submission that there were divergent two sets of opinion of lawyers was not sufficient to condone the delay. Even the dates of submission of papers to the lawyers and the dates of receipt of opinion from two sets of lawyers have not been stated in the Application for condonation of delay.

¶29

For all these reasons, Cri. APL No.198/2011 is summarily dismissed.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

sahare

Ronald Rao S/O Padmanabhan Rao v. Parth Joydevkumar Majumdar and 2 Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ronald Rao S/O Padmanabhan Rao v. Parth Joydevkumar Majumdar and 2 Oths

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

Santosh Brijmohan Rathi Vs Subhashchandra Bose Bigar Sheti Sah. Pat Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Its Admn. Shivdas Bhanudas Mankar

R.D. Bokde and 2 Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thru. Pso Ashti and Anor.

Dhanwardhini Investment and Finance Private Limited and Another Vs Smt Aruna W/O Ramchandra Sontake

The Agri. Dev. and Social Welfare Project Thr. Its Reporting Trustee Rev. Stephen Dainel Vs Parth Joydevkumar Majumdar and 2 Oths

Smt Anjali W/O Manohar Bute Vs Mamta Co-Operative Housing Society, Nagpur through Anand C Trivedi and Others

Deepak Chandrabhan Marathe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Digras Distt Yavatmal