Allowed

Gajanan S/O Wasudeorao Pathode and 2 Others v. State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Nagbhid Tq.Nagbhid Dist.Chadnrapur and Anotehr

Bombay HC20 Jan 2022APPP/48/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court restored a dismissed criminal application challenging FIR registration. The applicant admitted fault for not removing office objections despite a prior direction. No prejudice was found. Costs were imposed subject to payment.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant permitted to remove office objections within three weeks upon deposit of costs of Rs. 2,500.

Gajanan S/O Wasudeorao Pathode and 2 Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

APPP-48-22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NO. 48 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1303 OF 2021

¶5

GAJANAN S/O WASUDEO PATHODE AND OTHERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders

¶9

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶10

Shri Amit Band, Advocate for applicants.

¶11

 CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE & G. A. SANAP, JJ.
 DATE : 20/01/2022

¶12

Applicants approached this Court by filing Criminal
Application (APL) No.1303/2021 challenging the registration of the
First Information Report against them at Police Station, Nagbhid,
Dist. Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465,
468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The record shows that the said criminal application was
under objection. Therefore, the said application was listed before this
Court and this Court (Coram : Sunil B. Shukre and Anil L. Pansare,
JJ.) on 10/12/2021 directed the applicants to remove the office
objections within a period of two weeks. The Court also observed
that if the office objections are not removed within a period of two
weeks, the application shall stand dismissed without further
reference to the Court.

¶14

The applicants and their counsel failed to remove the
office objections within stipulated time as directed vide order dated
10/12/2021, resultantly, the application stood dismissed.

¶15

By moving present application, the applicants are seeking
restoration of the application.

¶16

¶17

APPP-48-22

¶18

Shri Amit Band, learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that due to his mistake, the office objections remained to
be removed. He submits that within a period of two weeks, he will
remove the office objections.

¶19

In the main matter since the notices were also not issued,
in our view, if the application is allowed today, no prejudice would
be caused to anybody. Even same is submission of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Shri T. A. Mirza.

¶20

Shri Band, learned counsel for the applicants volunteered
that he will deposit costs of Rs.2,500/- with the High Court Legal
Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.

¶21

Statement is accepted.

¶22

The application is allowed subject to payment of costs of
Rs.2,500/- with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Nagpur within a period of two weeks from today. If the costs of
Rs.2,500/- is paid, the Registry shall permit the applicants to remove
office objections within a period of three weeks from today.

¶23

With this, application is allowed and disposed of.

¶24

 (G. A. SANAP, J.) (V. M. DESHPANDE, J.)

¶25

Choulwar

¶26

VITHAL Digitally signed by VITHAL MAROTRAO MAROTRAO CHOULWARDate: 2022.01.21 10:42:01 CHOULWAR +0530

Gajanan S/O Wasudeorao Pathode and 2 Others v. State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Nagbhid Tq.Nagbhid Dist.Chadnrapur and Anotehr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan S/O Wasudeorao Pathode and 2 Others v. State of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Nagbhid Tq.Nagbhid Dist.Chadnrapur and Anotehr

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

Kiran W/O Ghanshyam Pande and 2 Others Vs the State Ofmah. Thr. Sub Divisional Ps Sub Division Ramtek Office at Kanhan Dist.Napgur and 2

Deepak S/O. Maroti Awari Vs the State of Mah. Thr Pso Durgapur Tah. and Dist. Chandrapur and Another

Alka Janardhan Wakde and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Bhadrawati Dist.Chandrapur and Another

Sachin Bhaskar Bobde Vs State of Mah. Thr. Ps Pulgaon Dist.Wardha and Another

Akil Baig Gulsher Baig Vs the State of Mah, Thr. P.So. P.S. Hiwarkhed, Distt. Akola

Prakash S/O Udhavdas Rawlani and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Gadge Nagar Amravati and Another