Deepa Dv/O Dinesh Dhallani (Deepa D/O Yogesh Kumar Kimtani ) Vs Dinesh S/O Prakashlal Dhallani and 8 Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Deepa Dv/O Dinesh Dhallani (Deepa D/O Yogesh Kumar Kimtani ) Vs Dinesh S/O Prakashlal Dhallani and 8 Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be rejected against contesting non-applicant Nos. 7 and 9, sought to be added as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in view of the applicant's persistent failure to serve them. +2 more

Court's answer

Considering the casual approach of the applicant, who neither served contesting non-applicant Nos. 7 and 9 nor supplied their correct addresses or e-mail addresses despite repeated opportunities and permission for paper publication, she is not serious in pursuing the matter against them.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the conduct of the applicant, the application is rejected against non-applicant Nos. 7 and 9.

Key takeaways

No evidence was brought on record by the applicant to show the involvement of non-applicant No. 8 in the alleged offence.ratio¶17
The learned trial Court rightly recorded the finding in favour of non-applicant No. 8 that no overt act is attributed against him and there are no allegations made against him.ratio¶18
There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as regards non-applicant No. 8.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Anil S. Kilor, J.) — Criminal Application (APL) No. 1221 of 2022, decided 25.02.2025 (2025:BHC-NAG:1989). Deepa d/o Dinesh Dhallani applied under S.482 Cr.P.C. on 23.08.2022 to challenge the trial Court's rejection of her request to add non-applicant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 as accused under S.319 Cr.P.C. The application lay pending about two and a half years as the applicant failed to serve contesting non-applicant Nos. 7 and 9 despite repeated opportunities, an office note recording their addresses as incorrect, and leave granted on 12.04.2024 for service by paper publication — never effected. Holding the applicant's approach casual and her pursuit not serious, the Court rejected the application against Nos. 7 and 9. Against non-applicant No. 8, no evidence of involvement in the alleged offence was on record; the trial Court had rightly found no overt act attributed and no allegations made, with no perversity in its findings. The remaining non-applicants being formal parties with no prayer sought against them, the application was rejected in its entirety.

1

2025:BHC-NAG:1989

903.apl.122.22.odt

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

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1221 OF 2022

Deepa d/o Dinesh Dhallani .Vs. Dinesh S/o Prakashlal Dhallani and others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

Mr. K.Y. Mandpe, Adv. h/f Shri Y.B. Mandpe, Adv. for applicant. Mr. R.H. Rawlani, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Shri A.P. Bhuibhar, Adv. h/f Shri A.M. Tirukh, Advocate for respondent No.5.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATED : 25/02/2025

Heard.

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) on 23.08.2022 and since last about two and half years, it is pending for the reason that, till date, even after repeated opportunity granted to the applicant, the applicant failed to serve the non-applicant Nos.7 and 9, who are the contesting non-applicants. There is an office note stating that the addresses of the non-applicant Nos.7 and 9 are found to be incorrect.

Multiple chances were given to the applicant to provide the correct address and even opportunities were given to the applicant to provide the email addresses of the non-applicant Nos.7 and 9. However, the applicant neither supplied the correct address of the non-applicant Nos.7 and 9 nor provided the email addresses of the non-applicant Nos.7 and 9.

2

903.apl.122.22.odt

This Court on 12.04.2024 granted permission to serve the unserved non-applicants by paper publication. Today after a lapse of ten months period, when a query was put to the learned counsel for the applicant as regards publication, he fairly states that he has not filed on record any such paper publication or notice issued through paper publication to show that the service is made.

Thus, considering the casual approach of the applicant, I am of the opinion that, the applicant is not serious in pursuing the matter against the non-applicant Nos.7 and 9 who were sought to be added as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and such request was rejected by the learned trial Court, which is the subject matter of the present application. Accordingly, considering the conduct of the applicant, the application is rejected against the nonapplicant Nos.7 and 9.

As far as the non-applicant No.8 is concerned, who is also sought to be added as an accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., there is no evidence brought on record by the applicant to show his involvement in the alleged offence.

The learned trial Court has rightly recorded the finding in favour of the non-applicant No.8 that there is no over act attributed against him or there are no allegations

3 903.apl.122.22.odt

made against the non-applicant No.8. In the circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as regards to the non-applicant No. 8.

In the circumstances, as the present application is rejected against the non-applicant Nos.7 and 9 on the ground that the applicant failed to serve them and on merit against the non-applicant No.8, nothing survives in the present application as the other non-applicants are the formal party and no prayer is sought against them in the present application. Accordingly, the application is rejected .

JUDGE

C.L.Dhakate