The Court rejected the criminal application because the applicant failed to utilize the efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Court of Sessions in revision. However, the interim order was extended for six weeks.
Application rejected; interim order extended for six weeks; appointed counsel fees fixed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
crapln433.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.433 OF 2012
SATISHCHANDRA RAMCHANDRA WANI. ...APPLICANT.
VERSUS
KISHOR DWARKADAS FULAWANI AND ANR.
...RESPONDENTS
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Patil Prakashsing B. APP for Respondent-State: Mr.V.P. Kadam. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Jagiasi S.H. (appointed)
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
Dated: October 18, 2013.
P.C.:
Mr. Kadam, learned A.P.P. for the respondent - State and
Mr. Jagiasi, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
before this Court, Mr. Jagiasi, learned Counsel, who has
crapln433.12
2
been appointed by the Court for the respondent No.1original complainant, was directed to ascertain whether the Court of Sessions had been approached before filing Criminal Application No.4224/2008 and whether the Writ Petition No.619/2008 had been allowed, or had been dismissed. Mr. Jagiasi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 states that on verifying, he has found that the Court of Sessions had not been approached before filing the Criminal Application No.4224/2008. He also states that Writ Petition No.619/2008 had not been allowed but, dismissed.
Needless to say that the applicant will be at liberty to
crapln433.12
file proper proceedings before the Court of Sessions for challenging the order issuing process against him and/or his prosecution.
Since the applicant was protected by an interim order passed by this Court for quite some time, it is directed that the interim relief shall continue to remain in force for a period of six weeks from today, notwithstanding that the application has been rejected.
In the event of the applicant approaching the Court of Sessions, within a period of six weeks from today, the Court of Sessions shall entertain the revision application and consider the same, on merits, without raising the question of bar of limitation.
crapln433.12
4
The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, who was
appointed by the Court, shall be paid fees quantified at Rs.
2500/-.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
PLK/*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the criminal application despite the existence of an alternative remedy.
Satishchandra Ramchandra Wani
Kishor Dwarkadas Fulawani
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
