Dismissed

Laxman Jagannath Munde v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC1 Oct 2013WP/132/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order restoring a complaint dismissed by a Magistrate. The Court dismissed the petition, holding the lower judge's order legal and no interference warranted, while directing the Magistrate to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed; the respondent citing the learned Magistrate shall expedite hearing and secure presence of accused.

Laxman Jagannath Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

crwp132.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.132 OF 2013

¶5

LAXMAN JAGANNATH MUNDE.

¶6

... PETITIONER.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.

¶9

... RESPONDENTS.

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner :Mr.S.G. Kawade h/f Mr. Salunke Sudarshan J

¶11

APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr.G.R. Ingole. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr.L.H. Kawale h/f Mr. K J Suryawanshi.

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶13

Dated: October 01, 2013.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

By consent, heard finally.

¶16

The respondent No.2 had filed a complaint

¶17

crwp132.13

¶18

¶19

against the petitioner and 19 others, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 494

¶20

of I.P.C. r/w Section 109 of I.P.C. And section 34 of I.P.C. On 30.12.1999, the learned Judicial Magistrate,

¶21

First Class, Ambejogai ordered process to be issued against the petitioner and other accused with respect to

¶22

the aforesaid offences. It appears that due to large number of accused persons in the case, there were problems in service of summons to them and the matter remained pending before the Magistrate for quite some time, without any progress. Ultimately, the Magistrate, by an order dated 26.03.2009, discharged

¶23

the accused persons by observing that the respondent No.2 i.e. the complainant and her Counsel were absent

¶24

on that date and that, ‘the complainant having failed to make further progress towards disposal of the case at

¶25

an earliest.’ Against this order, the original complainant moved the Court of Sessions by filing an

¶26

crwp132.13

¶27

¶28

application for revision, which application was allowed

¶29

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing restoration of the complaint to its original stage.

¶30

It is being aggrieved by the order passed by the

¶31

learned Additional Sessions Judge, that the petitioner,

¶32

who is accused No.1 in the said case, has approached

¶33

this Court invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction.

¶34

The order passed by the learned Additional

¶35

Sessions Judge does not seem to be suffering from any patent illegality or impropriety. The learned Additional

¶36

Sessions Judge observed that even non-bailable warrants had been issued against some of the accused and execution of the non bailable warrants was

¶37

pending.

¶38

On consideration of the matter, it is difficult to

¶39

crwp132.13

¶40

¶41

understand as to what the Magistrate meant by - ‘the complainant having failed to make further progress towards disposal of the case at an earliest.’ The least that was expected of the police was to execute the warrants of arrest issued against the accused persons and if this was not done, the respondent No.2 could not

¶42

be blamed for the same. Instead of putting blame on the respondent No.2, the Magistrate ought to have been more diligent in ensuring that the process issued by the Court was executed promptly by the police. Had the same been done, it would have been possible to make 'progress towards disposal of the case', which was to be

¶43

made by the learned Magistrate and not by the respondent No.2.

¶44

In my opinion, considering the nature of offence,

¶45

the respondent No.2 needs to be given an opportunity to prosecute the matter further. The order dismissing

¶46

crwp132.13

¶47

¶48

the complaint, when the police were not executing the

¶49

warrants issued against some of the accused, does not

¶50

seem to be proper or legal.

¶51

Consequently, the order passed by the Additional

¶52

Sessions Judge in revision is proper and legal. No interference therewith is warranted in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶53

The petition is dismissed.

¶54

However, the learned Magistrate shall expedite

¶55

hearing of the case and take steps for securing presence of the accused persons before the Court.

¶56

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶57

PLK/*

Laxman Jagannath Munde v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Jagannath Munde v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Wajid Abdul Wahid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr Dayasagar Baburao Javkar Died Lrs Rajani Dayasagar Javkar and Ors. Vs Abhinandan Pandurang Javkar and Ors.

Vinod Yashwant Aghamkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Vitthal Dagadu Kshirsagar Vs Mangal Vitthal Kshirsagar and Anr.

Asaram @ Ashok Pandharinath Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra