Allowed

Ravishankar S/O Chandrabhan Gupta v. Narayan S/O Manohar Patki

Bombay HC23 Dec 2022WP/871/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a petition to set aside an order rejecting an adjournment application. The petitioner, being present with valid documentary evidence for his advocate's absence due to a funeral, was granted permission to conduct a previously scheduled cross-examination in later dates.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01.12.2022 rejecting the adjournment is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to conduct cross-examination on 06.01.2023.

Ravishankar S/O Chandrabhan Gupta Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

19 cr wp 871.22.jud.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.871 OF 2 022

¶5

Ravishankar s/o Chandrabhan Gupta Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o Near Sapna ...PETITIONER Cloth Market, Rameshwari Sq. Nagpur

¶6

---VERSUS---

¶7

Narayan s/o Manohar Patki, Aged about 69 years, Occ.Retired, R/o 102, Bhide Road, Sitabuldi, Nagpur

¶8

...RESPONDENT

¶9

Shri U.Y. Son,usare, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.R. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent.

¶10

CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J. DATE : DECEMBER 23, 2022.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶13

consent of the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the record and proceedings.

¶14

This Court vide order dated 24.11.2022 had granted

¶15

the permission to the petitioner to cross examine the complainant. Specific date for cross examination subject to other condition was fixed. The petitioner/accused was directed to conduct the cross

¶16

examination on 01.12.2022 in one working session.

¶17

19 cr wp 871.22.jud.odt

¶18

¶19

In this petition, it is submitted that due to

¶20

unfortunate incident of death of father-in-law of advocate of the petitioner, the advocate was required to attend the funeral on 01.12.2022. Petitioner was present before the Court. He made an application for adjournment on this ground but learned Magistrate, in view of the observations made by this Court rejected the same.

¶21

It is to be noted that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner/accused. He was very much present before the Court. Absence of the advocate for this genuine reason has been supported by the documentary evidence. Therefore, in my view, the substantive relief granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be taken away. As such, the order dated 01.12.2022 passed below Exh. 51 in S.C.C. No.10006/2017 is set aside. The application is allowed.

¶22

The petitioner and advocate shall remain present before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur on 06.01.2023 and shall conduct the cross examination in terms of directions recorded in order dated 24.11.2022 passed by this Court.

¶23

Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

19 cr wp 871.22.jud.odt

¶26

¶27

Manisha

¶28

Signed By:MANISHA ALOK SHEWALE

¶29

Signing Date:23.12.2022 17:54

Ravishankar S/O Chandrabhan Gupta v. Narayan S/O Manohar Patki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravishankar S/O Chandrabhan Gupta v. Narayan S/O Manohar Patki

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

Greenfield Plantation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deoraj S/O Jethabai Gosar and Another

Shri Deepak Santosh Motghare Vs the State of Mah, Thr P.S. Jaripatka, Nagpur

Nalini D/O Ramdas Dahat Vs Vidyarthdhan S/O Baburao Chawre

Manojkumar S/O Ramkrishna Dhande Vs Honble Jt. C. J. and J. M. F. C. Civil and Criminal Court Building Umred, Nagpur and 2 Others

Pandurang Supada Wadhe Vs Arati Pandurang Wadhe @ Arati Gajanan Gawhale

Shankar Pundlikrao Douskar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Mouda Nagpur and Another