Disposed

Ms. Santosh Ravindranath Mishra v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jul 2024WP/1842/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Court, to address substantial delay in the trial of C.C. No.714/PS/2013, directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and conclude them within six months. The court clarified that it did not consider the merits of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to expedite the hearing and conclude the case within six months.

Ms. Santosh Ravindranath Mishra vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

ssm 16-wp1842.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1842 OF 2024

¶5

Ms. Santosh Ravindranath Mishra …..Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

¶8

Adv. Anil M. Dubey for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashish I. Satpute APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE : 26^th JULY, 2024.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Present Petition is filed for quashing of C.C. No.714/PS/2013,

¶12

pending on the file of 24th Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, Mumbai arising out of C.R. No.13 of 2012 registered with Malad Police Station, Mumbai.

¶13

The main ground which is urged by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner before us is that, there is a substantial delay in concluding the trial and therefore the right of an accused of speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 is violated. It is submitted that, in the present case the charge was framed on 13th June, 2016 and since then not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. That, the trial Court has now scheduled the said case for leading evidence on 23rd January, 2025.

¶14

1/2

¶15

ssm 16-wp1842.2024.doc

¶16

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to direct 24 th Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, Mumbai seized of C.C. No.714/PS/2013, to expedite its hearing and to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of present Order, without seeking extension in that behalf.

¶17

If the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that, either of the parties are not co-operating in speedy disposal of trial of the said case, he may invoke and adopt necessary provisions under the Cr.P.C. for expeditious disposal.

¶18

1. Petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.

¶19

It is made clear that, we have not considered the merits involved in the Petition and both the parties are at liberty to plead their case before the trial Court.

¶20

( DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶21

(A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by SANJIV SANJIV SHARNAPPA SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR MASHALKAR Date: 2024.08.03 15:45:48 +0530

¶23

2/2

Ms. Santosh Ravindranath Mishra v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Santosh Ravindranath Mishra v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akshay Madan Kharat vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Ramchandra Pawar and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manmohan Desraj Anand vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pankaj Deepak Chilap vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandrashekhar Dattaray Hule vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ronak Ramesh Pandya and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra