Dismissed

Mrs Pushpa W/O Damodharrao Navghare and Another v. Mrs Sharda W/O Prashant Raut and Another

Bombay HC27 Sept 2012APPP/1003/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CrRl. App. No. 469 of 2012, non-applicants challenged notice under PWDV Act via Section 482 CrPC, contesting they were not relatives. The court dismissed the application, holding the relativity issue must be decided after replies. In CrRl. App. No. 1003 of 2012, the court allowed correction of the respondent's name from Sharda to Sadhana.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed with no order as to costs; application to correct name allowed in Petitio.

Mrs Pushpa W/O Damodharrao Navghare and Another Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 469 OF 2012 Mrs. Pushpa Damodharrao Navghare & another .vs. Mrs. Sadhana Prashant Raut & another

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Ms. Jayshree Mahajan, Advocate for applicants. Mr. S.D. Chopde, Advocate for respondent no.1,

¶6

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

¶7

DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2012.

¶8

This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karanja dated 29.3.2012 directing that notice be issued to the non-applicants. The present applicants are the non-applicants who are questioning the institution of the proceedings against them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 i.e. under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the said Act.

¶9

The principal ground which is urged before us is that the applicants are not the relatives of the present respondent who had

¶10

¶11

filed the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanja. Since the trial Court has only passed an order issuing notice to the non-applicants, we are not inclined to interfere in the present proceedings. The respondents may file their replies and get the question decided whether they are relatives or not. At this stage, especially in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code such questions cannot be decided. We accordingly dismiss this application with no order as to costs.

¶12

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1003 OF 2012 :

¶13

By this application, the applicant seeks to correct the name of non-applicant from ‘Sharda’ to ‘Sadhana’. In the light of the fact that inadvertently the name of non-applicant/respondent no. 1 has been shown as ‘Sharda’ while her correct name is ‘Sadhana w/o Prashant Raut’, we allow this application. Corrections be carried out forthwith.

¶14

Judge Judge

¶15

Mrs Pushpa W/O Damodharrao Navghare and Another v. Mrs Sharda W/O Prashant Raut and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Pushpa W/O Damodharrao Navghare and Another v. Mrs Sharda W/O Prashant Raut and Another

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

Dr Shyamrao S/O Ghamaji Bade and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Pramod S/O Balkrishna Vaidya (in Jail) Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Narkhed P.S.

Sanjay S/O Purushottam Narkhede (in Jail) Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O., Pratap Nagar Police Station

Mohammad Wasim Md. Imam Bhiwaniwale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Superintendent of Prison Amravati

Manohar S/O Jangluji Surjuse (in Central Prison) Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O.

Pravin S/O Manohar Dhabekar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Hudkeshwar