Partly allowed

Shri Nivruti Priaji Thite v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2015WP/705/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the High Court set aside an order dismissing a complaint due to absence of parties without attempting to secure their attendance. The court held the order was without authority of law, directed restoration of the proceeding to file, and ordered steps to secure attendance to proceed in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12-12-2014 set aside; R.C.C. No.73 of 2005 restored for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Shri Nivruti Priaji Thite Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

12_wp_705_2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.705 OF 2015

¶4

Nivruti Piraji Thite ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Smt. S.S. Wadekar for the Petitioner.

¶8

Smt. A.A. Mane, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶9

CORAM:-M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.

¶10

DATED : -9/3/2015

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned

¶13

APP for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶14

Perused the impugned order. The impugned order runs as

¶15

under :

¶16

The case is pending since long for the appearance of the accused persons. The complainant is absent. Since long, no steps have been taken by the complainant to secure the presence of the accused persons. As such, the matter has remained idle on the same stage. As such, I do not find any propriety in keeping the matter pending. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶17

Order

¶18

The complaint is hereby dismissed.

¶19

megha Page No.1 of 2

¶20

12_wp_705_2015.doc

¶21

3. It appears that in the Criminal Case No.73 of 2005

¶22

evidence before charge of the Petitioner / complainant was recorded and charge was framed. After framing of charge, PW1 was under cross examination. It further appears to me that on the date of hearing complainant and accused both were absent and therefore, complaint was dismissed.

¶23

In my view order is absolutely without authority of law. Learned Magistrate could not have dismissed the complaint as it was duty of the learned Magistrate to secure attendance of the accused as well as the complainant and bring the case to a logical end. Nothing more is required to be written in the present order. Suffice it to say that order is required to be set aside.

¶24

The impugned order dated 12-12-2014 is set aside. The R.C.C. No.73 of 2005 to be restored to file. Learned J.M.F.C., Ghodnadi (Shirur) shall take all necessary steps to secure attendance of PW1 and accused and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶25

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(JUDGE)

¶27

Page No.2 of 2

¶28

megha

Shri Nivruti Priaji Thite v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nivruti Priaji Thite v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Shrigopal D Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajit Ramawadh Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Hemanth Meka Rao Vs Superintendent (a.E) and Anr.

Yogendra P. Trivedi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Sunil Somprakash Bahl Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Imran Khan Vs Minor Tanzila Eram Imran Khan and Anr.