Allowed

Vinayak Dangal Patil and Others v. Anita Ratilal Patil and Another

Bombay HC8 Dec 2014WP/751/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition challenging an order that refused the petitioners an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. The petitioners had explicitly declined to cross-examine when offered. The Court set aside the impugned order, directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 3,000 as compensation to the complainant, and remanded the matter for proceedings to resume with the

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing permission to cross-examine the complainant was set aside. The petitioners were directed to deposit ₹3,000 as cost; the proceedings were remanded to the Magistrate to cross

Vinayak Dangal Patil and Others Vs Anita Ratilal… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Cri.W.P.No. 751/14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 751 OF 2014

¶5

Vinayak Dangal Patil and Ors.

¶6

....Petitioners.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Anita Ratilal Patil and Anr.

¶9

....Respondents.

¶10

Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioners.

¶11

Mr. R.S. Shinde h/f. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶12

Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for State.

¶13

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 8th December, 2014.

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made

¶16

by the learned J.M.F.C. on 25.11.2013 below Exh. 61 in RCC No. 88/2005. In a private complaint filed by present respondent, lady, charge is framed against the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 354, 323, 452, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and the recording of evidence after charge is going on. On 25.11.2014 the complainant was present in the Court and he was to be cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. The learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 and 2, petitioners, was absent and when the Court asked present

¶17

Cri.W.P.No. 751/14

¶18

¶19

petitioners to cross examine the complainant, they submitted that they were not able to cross examine the complainant. In view of these circumstances, the learned J.M.F.C. held that the accused had declined to cross examine the complainant and the Court decided to proceed ahead.

¶20

It cannot be said that the order was totally improper or illegal as opportunity was given to the accused to cross examine the complainant and if they declined, such order can be made. However, to give an opportunity to the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2, this Court holds that the said order can be set aside subject to payment of some cost. The complainant, who is lady, must have spent some amount for the present proceeding.

¶21

So, the petition is allowed, subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 before J.M.F.C. within 15 days from today, and the order made on Exh. 137 refusing the permission to cross examine the complainant is set aside. The parties are to appear before J.M.F.C. on 24.12.2014. If the cost amount is not deposited within stipulated period, it is to be presumed that the present proceeding is dismissed and the Magistrate is at liberty to

¶22

Cri.W.P.No. 751/14

¶23

¶24

proceed ahead. This Court is making it clear that it will be up to the complainant to decide as to whether all the witnesses need to be kept present for cross examination on the same day. However, the learned J.M.F.C. can give direction to keep witnesses present on any particular date and on that date, the witnesses can be cross examined by the defence counsel.

¶25

In those terms, the proceeding is disposed of.

¶26

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶27

ssc/

Vinayak Dangal Patil and Others v. Anita Ratilal Patil and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Dangal Patil and Others v. Anita Ratilal Patil 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

Harshal Mahadeo Kakde Vs Sau.Nirmla Suryabhan Chaudhari and Another

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramesh Sukhdev Uike

Pradnya Sidharth Sughande and Others Vs Sidharth Shivram Sughande

Mohammad Vazir Shaikh and Others Vs Roshan Mohammad Shaikh and Others

Umesh Dilip Goyar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another