Allowed

Omprakash Shatrughan Prasad Singh and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2023IA/884/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a special appeal arising from a direction to return dowry ornaments. Ruling that no legal difficulty exists to return ornaments to the complainant since the parties reside together and nothing survives in the appeal, the court allowed parties to make a formal application to the Special Court. The criminal appeal stands disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Return of gold ornaments to respondent no.2 is authorized subject to a formal application before the Special Court; the criminal appeal is disposed of.

Omprakash Shatrughan Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/3 14 IA 884-23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 884 OF 2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1518 OF 2004

¶3

Omprakash Shatrughan Prasad Singh .. Applicants and ors

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Omkar Nagwekar for the applicants. Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 9^th MARCH 2023

¶8

P.C:-

¶9

1 The applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are present in the Court.

¶10

2 My attention is invited to the order dated 27/2/2023 when this Court recorded that the matter is settled between the parties and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the Appeal pending on the file of this Court. However, since certain technical difficulty appear, this Court directed the vakalatnama to be filed on behalf of appellant nos.1 and 2, since it is informed that appellant no.3 is no longer alive.

¶11

Tilak

¶12

2/3 14 IA 884-23.doc

¶13

3 On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the Appeal Memo along with the Record and Proceedings, it can be seen that the present Appeal is filed by the three appellants, being aggrieved by the direction issued by the Special Judge in SCST Special Case No.10/2001, while acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and (x)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the following direction was issued :

¶14

“Gold ornaments – Article nos.1 to 3 shall be returned to the complainant PW 1 – Anita Omprakash Singh after the expiry of the period of appeal”

¶15

The above direction being issued on 8/10/2004 is the cause for the Appeal being instituted by the appellants on 13/12/2004.

¶16

4 A ground is specifically raised in the Appeal to the effect that the Sessions Judge has erred in issuing such a direction, since the controversy over the title to the ornaments can only be resolved by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the Court could not have passed a direction u/s.442 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

5 While the Appeal was pending for adjudication, for almost two decades now, cohabitation between the appellant and respondent no.2 and the parties who are present in person before

¶18

Tilak

¶19

3/3 14 IA 884-23.doc

¶20

the Court, categorically state that they are residing together as on date.

¶21

In the wake of the above, I see no difficulty in return of the gold ornaments to respondent no.2 which are presently in the custody of the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai.

¶22

This is however, subject to the formal application being preferred before the Special Court, which shall be decided by the learned Judge forthwith.

¶23

Since nothing survives in the Appeal, which was only restricted to a particular direction, and since the contesting parties are residing together, the Appeal stands disposed off.

¶24

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶25

Tilak

Omprakash Shatrughan Prasad Singh and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Shatrughan Prasad Singh and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Kailash Chimaji Gawali @ Hiranwale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rouf Abdul Aziz Janoo Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rafiq Khanda Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh S/O Deoram Sable Vs State of Maharashtra

Devidas Keshav Divakar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Laxman Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.