Dismissed

Shramik Seva Union v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Aug 2013APPLN/202/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC seeking clubbing of pending cases, the Division Bench dismissed the petition, noting that identical reliefs were already covered by earlier orders dated 6.9.2005 and 26.9.2005.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shramik Seva Union Vs the State of Maharashtra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

appln 202-13.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.202 of 2013

¶4

Shramik Seva Union .. Applicant

¶5

v/s.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondent/s

¶7

Mr.Neville Detro a/w. Mr.Kiran Jadhav for the Applicant. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh APP for State. Mr.Ajay Verekar for the Respondent nos.6, 7 and 9.

¶8

CORAM: P.V.HARDAS &, REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 14, 2013.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant prays for issuance of necessary directions for clubbing all the 29 cases pending trial before the respective Special MPID Courts in Maharashtra, which are referred in detail in Exhibit C, and further prays for issuance of directions for holding a single trial.

¶11

In respect of prayer clause (c) to the application i.e. to call for the

¶12

pps 1/4

¶13

appln 202-13.sxw

¶14

total records of movable and immovable properties/assets attached by respondent nos.1 to 4, the learned Counsel for the applicant states on instructions that the applicant does not press for the relief prayed for at prayer clause (c) to the application.

¶15

In respect to the relief prayed for by the applicant at prayer clause (b) to the application, it appears that Criminal Writ Petition No.1786 of 2005 had been filed in this Court and the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 6.9.2005 at paragraph 3 had directed that all the 28 complaints lodged at various police stations in Maharashtra be clubbed together and a common investigation be carried out by the State CID.

¶16

Subsequently, it appears that Criminal Writ Petition No.2291 of 2005 has been filed in this Court praying for several reliefs. In respect of relief prayed for at prayer clause (b) to the petition, the Division Bench expressed its opinion that the relief prayed for at prayer clause (b) to the petition could be taken care of by virtue of the previous order dated 6.9.2005 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1786 of 2005. In addition, the Division Bench further directed “As a necessary consequence to the above order, all these

¶17

pps 2/4

¶18

appln 202-13.sxw

¶19

cases will be tried in one court. In view of the aforesaid order we see no difficulty in CID taking over any fresh complaint lodged in respect of the subject matter of those 28 complaints even if they are filed at some other police stations in the State of Maharashtra”.

¶20

Thus, the relief which the applicant has prayed for at prayer clause (b) to this application has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in its orders dated 6.9.2005 and 26.9.2005.

¶21

Despite the two orders being passed by the Division Bench of this Court, a similar relief is again sought for in this application. In the light of the order which has been passed earlier, this court is not expected to pass the same order again and again in exercise of powers under Article 226 or 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are, therefore, not inclined to pass any order in respect of prayer clause (b) to the petition. Since the learned Counsel for the applicant states on instructions that the applicant does not press for relief prayed for at prayer clause (c) to the application, no other relief survives for consideration and this application is accordingly dismissed, relegating the applicant to seek to appropriate remedy seeking

¶22

pps 3/4

¶23

appln 202-13.sxw

¶24

enforcement of the orders passed by this court earlier, if they are not

¶25

complied with.

¶26

Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

[REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.]

¶28

[P.V.HARDAS, J.]

¶29

pps 4/4

Shramik Seva Union v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shramik Seva Union v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veena Sanjay Raut and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivmurthi Naik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sujata Ganesh Sunlulu and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Praveen Kailas Gaikwad

Kishor Tanaji Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilavati Govind Patil Vs Pravin Kailas Gaikwad and Anr.