Dismissed

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kawate v. Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

Bombay HC14 Oct 2019RA/211/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench at Aurangabad rejected three review applications filed by the Nagnath Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. against an order dismissing contempt petitions. The court held the applications were meritless as the original order directed the Investigating Officer, not the Superintendent of Police, who was the sole respondent.

What did the court decide?

Review applications stand rejected.

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 ra-210,211,212-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 210 OF 2019
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 399 OF 2019
 WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 211 OF 2019
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 400 OF 2019
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 212 OF 2019
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 401 OF 2019

¶4

Nagnath Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli
Through its Branch Manager… Applicant
Versus
Mr. Yogesh Kumar,
Superintendent of Police, Hingoli… Respondent

¶5

Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant.

¶6

 CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.

¶7

 DATED : 14th OCTOBER, 2019

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

. Heard Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

2. These three review applications are taken up together, since, the parties thereto are one and the same.

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

2 ra-210,211,212-19.doc

¶13

3. These applications have been moved for review of the common order passed by this Court on 09.09.2019, dismissing contempt petition Nos. 399, 400 and 401 of 2019.

¶14

4. The applicant had moved petitions alleging the respondent to have committed contempt of the order dated 11.03.2019, passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 2019. For better appreciation, the order passed on 11.03.2019 in all three criminal writ petitions is reproduced below :-

¶15

“……………..

¶16

………………
(I)The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hingoli is
directed to expedite the hearing of Regular Criminal
Case Nos.250/2008, 313/2007 and 310/2007 and
decide the same as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of the present order.

¶17

(II) The Investigating Officer as well as the petitioner shall cooperate to the trial Court for disposal of the aforesaid criminal cases within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶18

(III)Criminal Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶19

5.This Court, rejected the contempt petitions on the ground
that the Investigating Officer was not made party to the contempt
petitions. The contempt petitions were moved against the
Superintendent of Police, alone, while the order passed in the

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

3 ra-210,211,212-19.doc

¶22

criminal writ petitions undoubtedly indicate that direction was
given to the Investigating Officer to cooperate with the trial Court
for expeditious disposal of the cases. The Superintendent of Police
was in no way concerned with the investigation of the crime in
question. The Superintendent of Police has not been issued any
direction in the order dated 11.03.2019.

¶23

6.The contempt petitions were disposed of by this Court
mainly on the ground that Investigating Officer has not been made
party thereto and the Superintendent of Police against whom the
contempt petitions came to be filed, was not subjected to any of
the directions given in the order dated 11.03.2019.

¶24

7. Therefore, in my view, there is no substance in the review applications. The review applications, therefore, stand rejected.

¶25

SMS

¶26

3 of 3

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kawate v. Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kawate v. Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

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

Premanand Amrutlal Upacharya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shahurao Madhavrao Tekale through Lrs Kantrao Shahurao Tekale Vs Vishnu Mahadeo Shinde and Others

Alka Pandit Nagare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kawate Vs Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kawate Vs Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

Ambarsing Ramchandra Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another