Allowed

Harshal Mahadeo Kakde v. Sau.Nirmla Suryabhan Chaudhari and Another

Bombay HC5 Dec 2014WP/33/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to set aside the Sessions Judge's order rejecting an application to join two counter cases in criminal RC No.328/2012. The Court directed the Judicial Magistrate to transfer one case to the Sessions Court so both could be tried together by the same learned Judge.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Sessions Judge was set aside; the application was allowed; the Judicial Magistrate was directed to send the matter to the Sessions Court; the Sessions Judge was directed to try both c

Harshal Mahadeo Kakde Vs Sau.Nirmla Suryabhan… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 Cr WP 33/2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.33 of 2014

¶4

Harshal Mahadeo Kakde, Age 40 years, Occupation : Service, R/o Shahunagar, Kedgaon, Taluka and District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Nirmla Suryabhan Chaudhari, Age 47 years Occupation : Legal Practitioner, R/o Rajhansnagar Vihar Apartment In front of District Court, Ahmednagar.

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents.

¶8

Shri. Rajendra S. Kasar, Advocate, for petitioner.

¶9

Shri. S.K. Tambe, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

¶11

DATE : 5th DECEMBER 2014

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

¶14

both the sides by consent for final disposal. Nobody has turned up for respondent No.1.

¶15

2 Cr WP 33/2014

¶16

The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by the learned Sessions Judge Ahmednagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.46/2013. This application was filed by the petitioner, accused from Sessions case No.328/2012 for bringing two counter cases together in Sessions Court for the trial of the two cases by the same Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that two cases cannot be said to be counter cases of each other. The leaned Sessions Judge has further observed that the case which is triable by Judicial Magistrate cannot be tried by the Sessions Court and on that ground the application is rejected.

¶17

This Court has gone though the copies of the FIR from the two cases. Copy of FIR of Crime No.190 shows that the incident took place on 10-6-2010 between 4.30 and 5.00 p.m, at Anandi Bazar, near Court Gate. Crime was registered for offences under sections 354, 384, 506 etc of the Indian Penal Code and the charge sheet is filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, which is given R.T.C. No.188/2011.

¶18

3 Cr WP 33/2014

¶19

Copy of FIR of the second crime shows that this incident took place on 10-6-2010 at 16.30 hours (4.30 p.m.) at Anandi Bazar in front of District Court Ahmednagar. Crime is registered for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 323, 504 etc. of the Indian Penal Code, under sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. Charge sheet is filed in the Sessions Court as this case is triable by the Sessions Court in view of the special legislation. The complainant of the first FIR Smt. Nirmala Suryabhan Choudhari has made allegations against Harshal Mahadeo Kakade. The second FIR was filed by Harshal Mahadeo Kakade against Nirmala Choudhari and others. The cases against both the sides are filed so apparently they are counter cases of each other. In view of this it is desirable that the same Judge decides both the cases. The observations made by the learned Sessions Judge that the case which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate is not triable by the Special Judge are not correct in law.

¶20

4 Cr WP 33/2014

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases reported as 2001 Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 569 (Sudhir v. State of M.P.) and 2005 (Supple 1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 847 (Giridhar Pise v. State of Maharashtra) . In these cases the necessity of trial of counter cases by the same Judge is discussed.

¶22

6) In the result, following order.

¶23

The petition is allowed. The order of the Sessions Judge Ahmednagar is hereby set aside. The application filed for bringing two cases is allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class is to send the matter pending before him bearing R.T.C. No.188/2011 to the Court where Sessions Case No.328/2012 is pending. The Sessions Judge is to try and decide both the cases as counter cases of each other. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶24

Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J. )

¶25

rsl

Harshal Mahadeo Kakde v. Sau.Nirmla Suryabhan Chaudhari and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshal Mahadeo Kakde v. Sau.Nirmla Suryabhan Chaudhari and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattatraya Bajirao Sangle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kailash Namdeo Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sharad Bhaskar Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Naushad Begum Shaikh Hamid Ahemad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramesh Sukhdev Uike

Kishor S/O Deorao Kapde and Others Vs Chaitali W/O Ravindra Kapde and Another