Disposed

Maruti Jagannath Karad v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2013APPLN/1873/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged an order dismissing a cheque bouncing case for want of prosecution. The High Court held that no such provision exists in CrPC and construed it as an acquittal under Section 256 CrPC, making it appealable rather than a matter for inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application is disposed of with directions that the applicant is entitled to file an appeal.

Maruti Jagannath Karad Vs the State of Mah and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

24 appln.1873.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1873 OF 2012

¶5

MARUTI JAGANNATH KARAD

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Bide Dnyaneshwar A APP for Respondents: Advocate for Respondents :

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 03rd October, 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

. Heard.

¶12

2 The Applicant is the original Complainant. He had filed a case against the Respondent No.2 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathardi, on being satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Respondent No.2, had issued process against the Respondent No.2 in respect of the said offence. While the said case was pending, on 16th February, 2012, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:

¶13

“ORDER

¶14

Complainant and his advocate absent since long. Today they are absent when called reputedly (repeatedly). The matter is pending for steps since long which complainant failed to take till date. Hence

¶15

¶16

24 appln.1873.12

¶17

‘dismissed for want of prosecution’.”

¶18

( emphasis supplied )

¶19

3 Being aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant has approached this Court invoking its inherent powers.

¶20

4 The learned Magistrate has not mentioned in the impugned order as to under which provision of law, he was passing the said order. Admittedly, summons had already been issued against the Respondent No.2. The Applicant i.e. Complainant and his counsel were absent before the Court as highlighted in the order by the learned Magistrate himself.

¶21

5 The impugned order has to be construed as an order of acquittal passed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no provision of ‘dismissing a complaint for want of prosecution’ in the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the tenor of the order and from the legal provisions in respect of the trial of cases, as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no doubt can be felt that the impugned order must be considered as an order of acquittal under Section 256 of the Code.

¶22

6 Such order is appealable.

¶23

7 It is, therefore, not proper to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. The Applicant shall be entitled to file an appeal against the said order.

¶24

8 With these observations, the application is disposed of.

¶25

[ ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. ]

¶26

ndm

Maruti Jagannath Karad v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Jagannath Karad v. the State of Mah 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

Laxman Jagannath Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Aditya Motors, Sonalika Tractors Thr. Its Partners Vs Shaikh Riyaz Shaikh Badshah

Vitthal Dagadu Kshirsagar Vs Mangal Vitthal Kshirsagar and Anr.

Satyabhamabai Laxman Dharme Vs Ramhari Sitaram Therbele and Anr.

Sayyed Fataulla Hashmi Ahmadulla Hashmi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madhav Yadavrao Dhotre Vs Saraswatibai Babulal Pandit and Ors.