Allowed

Kumar@Appaso Kallapa Kumsage v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jan 2020APPLN/180/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application under the Maharashtra Protection of Civil Rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act seeks expeditious hearing of a pending atrocity case (Special Atrocity Case No.12 of 2013). The Court notes prolonged delays due to adjournments by the complainant. It directs the trial Court to dispose of the case within four months. The Writ Petition is allowed.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court is directed to give top priority to Special (Atrocity) Case No.12 of 2013 and dispose of it within four months.

Kumar@Appaso Kallapa Kumsage Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

908.WP.APPLN.180.19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2019

¶4

Kumar@ Appaso Kallappa Kumsage …..Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …..Respondent

¶5

Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. DATE : 10^th JANUARY, 2020

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

1. The present petition is fled by the accused in Special (Atrocity) Case No.12 of 2013 for expeditious hearing of the case. It is contended that Special (Atrocity) Case No.12 of 2013 was fled against him in the year 2013. The charge was framed, but on every date of hearing, the complainant had fled an application for adjournment on many reasons. Therefore, the applicant/accused has fled Criminal Writ Petition No.908 of 2017 for expeditious hearing of the said case, wherein this Court had directed the trial Court to decide Special (Atrocity) Case No.12 of 2013 expeditiously and dispose of the same as early as possible. It is also directed that the litigating sides shall refrain from seeking adjournments on unreasonable grounds. Even the evidence of complainant was not recorded. Hence, the status of case was sought from the trial Court. The

¶10

Aarti Palkar

¶11

1/2

¶12

908.WP.APPLN.180.19.doc

¶13

learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli has fled her report dated 25.09.2019, wherein she has stated that the original complainant Smt. U.B. Wetam sought adjournments on diferent grounds. It was also informed that there are diferent directions from this Court to expedite the hearing and no adjournment would be granted to her and matter was now listed for hearing on priority basis. The learned trial Court has simply expressed her anxiety to proceed with the trial, but practically nothing is happened till today. Therefore, the trial Court is required to be directed to dispose of Special (Atrocity) Case No.12 of 2013 in time framed manner. The ofence is under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Looking to the nature of ofence and the witnesses, it appears that the matter can be disposed of within a period of four months if the priority is given to it. The matter is pending since 2013. Therefore, the same directions are required to be given to the trial Court. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶14

- : O R D E R : -

¶15

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶16

(ii) The trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of Special (Atrocity) Case No.12 of 2013 by giving top priority and dispose of within a period of four months from the receipt of this order.

¶17

[SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.]

¶18

Aarti Palkar

¶19

2/2

Kumar@Appaso Kallapa Kumsage v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar@Appaso Kallapa Kumsage v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Daud Mohd. Fansopkar Vs the Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. through Nanasaheb D. Tupe and Anr.

Daud Mohd. Fansopkar Vs the Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. through Nanasaheb D. Tupe and Anr.

Daud Mohd. Fansopkar Vs the Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. through Nanasaheb D. Tupe and Anr.

Annand Madhavrao Sarnaaik and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kumar@Appaso Kallapa Kumsage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vasantrao Wamanrao Morey Vs the State of Maharashtra