Dismissed

Rukhshana Rafiulla Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2013APPLN/246/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court dismissed an application for condonation of delay and leave to appeal filed by an absent applicant. The court found her reasons of absence implausible, noting her failure to appear despite past engagement and the lack of merit in her case.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed.

Rukhshana Rafiulla Shaikh Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

sbw

p.1 appln264.13

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.246 OF 2013 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.264 OF 2013

¶6

Smt. Rukhshana Rafiulla Shaikh

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

None for the Applicant.

¶12

Ms. A. A. Mane, APP, for the Respondent No.1– State. Mr. Sanjay M. Indulkar-in-person, Respondent No.2 and representative of Respondent No.3 present in Court.

¶13

CORAM : A. H. JOSHI, J.

¶14

DATE : 14^th October, 2013

¶15

1] None appears for the applicant.

¶16

2] The respondent has shown copy of intimation sent to applicant asking her to remain present in the Court. Still she is not present.

¶17

3] Heard the respondent. He states that he does not accept the liability subject matter of the transactions, however he is willing to pay by way of consolation and without accepting any liability an amount of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand). He has even brought a demand draft drawn in the name of applicant Smt. Rukhshana Rafiulla Shaikh.

¶18

4] Since none appears for the applicant, this Court has perused the impugned judgment. By the said impugned judgment, case was dismissed for default and the accused was acquitted.

¶19

sbw 2/2 p.1 appln264.13

¶20

5] The applicant has given the explanation as to the reason of absence that as the applicant was in tremendous mental shock due to death of her husband, she was not able to attend the court proceedings, and after she returned to Bombay she had submitted present application for leave to appeal.

¶21

6] It is noticed that in past on some dates the applicant was present in this Court and talks relating to giving some amount to the applicant by the accused by way of consolation had taken place.

¶22

7] Failure of the applicant to remain present before this Court on various dates explains that she is not willing to receive said amount offered by way of consolation.

¶23

8] This Court had taken into account the reasons offered by applicant towards absence before the trial Court. The reasons of absence are not explained plausibly and satisfactorily.

¶24

9] Applicant has failed to show ground explaining delay and absence before the trial Court. Therefore the application for condonation of delay and present application do not have any merit and both applications are dismissed.

¶25

( A. H. JOSHI, J.)

¶26

wadhwa

Rukhshana Rafiulla Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukhshana Rafiulla Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Saleem Abdul Majid Bagwan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santoshkumar Vishwakarma Vs Mangesh Thange and Anr.

Equiquest Brokerage House Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramesh Shantilal Dalal and Anr.

M/S. v. a. Enterprises Vs M/S. Tooltek Special Machinces and Ors.

Rukhshana Rafiulla Shiakh W/O Rafiulla Amirulla Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivnath Munshilal Saraf and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra