The High Court of Bombay, in a writ petition, directed the trial court to expedite the trial of a criminal case lodged in 2010 and dispose of it within nine months.
Trial of C.C. No. 5300484/PW/2010 to be expedited and disposed of within nine months; separation of trial permitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp.1023.19.45.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1023 OF 2019
Pratik Vinod Shirgaonkar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Shyamrishi Pathak for the Petitioner
None for the Respondent-State
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. WEDNESDAY, 27th NOVEMBER 2019
P.C. :
2 By this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:
“b. That this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction may kindly be pleased to issue Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper and direct the Learned M.M. 53rd Court, Mulund, Mumbai to expeditiously dispose of C.C. No. 5300484/PW/ 2010.”
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is of 2010 and that till date, the trial has not progressed. He submits that the petitioner is the original accused No. 1 in the said case. He states that the other co-accused are not traceable and hence, non-bailable warrants issued
1/3
SQ Pathan
wp.1023.19.45.doc
against the said co-accused are pending since 2016. He submits that till date, the prosecution has not submitted its report whether the non-bailable warrants have been served or not on the said accused i.e. accused Nos. 2 to 4. He submits that the petitioner is diligently appearing before the trial Court on the dates given and that the trial be expedited since the petitioner having completed his studies, wants to travel abroad for earning his livelihood. He submits that the trial of the petitioner be separated from that of the other co-accused.
4 Perused the papers. The FIR was registered as against the applicant and other co-accused in 2010 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The offences alleged as against the applicant are offences under Sections 324, 323, 524 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the fact that the case is of the year 2010, the trial of the petitioner needs to be expedited. Accordingly, the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) The trial of the petitioner i.e. C.C. No. 5300484/PW/2010 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 53rd Court, Mulund, Mumbai, is expedited;
2/3
SQ Pathan
wp.1023.19.45.doc
(ii) The learned Judge to dispose of the said case as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within nine months from the date of receipt of this order;
(iii) It is open for the learned Judge to separate the trial of the petitioner, if the other co-accused are not available for trial;
(iv) Application is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
5 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
3/3
SQ Pathan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial of a criminal case pending since 2010.
Pratik Vinod Shirgaonkar
The State of Maharashtra
Revati Mohite Derez
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
