Dismissed

Sanatan Sanstha, through Its Managing Trustee Shri. Virendra Pandurang Marathe. v. Dnyanesh Maharao and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2015WPCR/11/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order dismissing a criminal complaint because the petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment, resulting in non-appearance. The dismissal was quashed without costs against the State.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, the complaint was restored to file, and costs of Rs.2,000 were payable to the Goa State Legal Services Authority.

Sanatan Sanstha, through Its Managing Trustee… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WPCR11/15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2015

¶5

Sanathan Sanstha, A Public Charitable Trust, Registered with the Sub Registrar, Ponda under No. No.1/IV/2, Ponda, Goa having its office at Sanatan Ashram, Ramnathi, Ponda, Goa, Through its Managing Trustee Shri Virendra Pandurang Marathe .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dnyanesh Maharao, Editor, Chitralekha, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, having his office at 22, Andheri Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai - 400053.

¶8

Chitralekha, Owner of Marathi Weekly Chitralekha, having office at 22, Andheri Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai400053.

¶9

Mr. Mitrajeet Bhattacharya, Publisher and Printer of 'Chitralekha' having Office at Chitralekha House, Oshivara, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053.

¶10

Sandhya Nare Pawar, C/o Chitralekha, Mumbai- 400053.

¶11

WPCR11/15

¶12

¶13

Mr. Mukund Kule, C/o Chitralekha, 22, Andheri Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. 6. Mr. Shyam Manav, C/o. Chitralekha 22, Andheri Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai400053. 7. Mr. Bhanudas Kahnu Adbhai, Adult, Residing at Gokul Colony, Rahuri, Tal. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar (Maharashtra) 8. The State Goa Through the Public Prosecutor, Panaji, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. Nagesh Takbhate, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Thalmann Pradeep Pereira, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 6. Mr. G. Naik, Advocate for the respondent no.7.

¶14

CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J. Date :- 17th June , 2015.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by

¶17

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

WPCR11/15

¶19

¶20

By this petition, the petitioner, which is a Trust and the original complainant, is challenging the order dated 12/12/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No.131/2008/B. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. for non-prosecution.

¶21

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on account of some difficulty faced by the Counsel for the petitioner/ complainant, the Counsel could not remain present. It is submitted that the petitioner/ complainant was informed that the Counsel would be seeking time. In such circumstances, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, which has resulted into passing of the impugned order.

¶22

It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has not made out any case for non-appearance of the Managing Trustee of the petitioner and in the absence of the same, the impugned order cannot be interfered with.

¶23

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it

¶24

WPCR11/15

¶25

¶26

appears that the Counsel for the petitioner was in some difficulty and as it was informed to the Managing Trustee of the petitioner that the Counsel would be seeking time, there was no appearance of the Managing Trustee also. In such circumstances and in the interest of justice, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the complaint restored to file, subject to appropriate costs. In such circumstances, the following order is passed :

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause

¶29

(a), subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000/in favour of the Goa State Legal Services Authority, Panaji, within a period of one week from today.

¶30

(ii) The parties to appear before the learned Magistrate on 07/07/2015 at 2.30 p.m.

¶31

(iii) The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

¶32

SMA

Sanatan Sanstha, through Its Managing Trustee Shri. Virendra Pandurang Marathe. v. Dnyanesh Maharao and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanatan Sanstha, through Its Managing Trustee Shri. Virendra Pandurang Marathe. v. Dnyanesh Maharao and 7 Ors.

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

Dr. Ajoy Estibeiro Vs CBI through P.P.

Shri. K. S. Sankar Vs State Thr. Cbi/Acb/Goa and 2 Ors.

Shri Nitin Yeshwant Patekar Vs Mrs. Maria Luiza Quadros through Her Attorney Mr. Sebastian Joseph Quadros and Anr.

Shri. Hanumanth Marthandappa Ambigar. Vs Shri. Narendra B. Kerkar and 6 Ors.

Sesa Goa Limited, Vedanta Represented by Its Avp-Pid, Mr. N. L. Vhatte Vs Kshitij Developers Rep. by Their Constituted P. O. a. Mr. Gajanan Janardan Zarapkar and 5 Ors.

Mr. Inacio Casmiro Fernandes. Vs Mrs. Carol Fernandes.