Disposed¶26

Sarika Akshay Ranade v. Akshay Arun Ranade and Ors.

Condonation of delay – Criminal Appeal against acquittal

Bombay HC10 Jan 2025IA/696/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), N.R. Borkar, J. — Interim Application No.696 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.825 of 2022 — Sarika Akshay Ranade v. Akshay Arun Ranade & Ors. — decided 04.09.2025. Condonation of delay in filing the victim's appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the Sessions Court's acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC; the revision application had earlier been permitted to be converted into an appeal by order dated 04.08.2022; delay, if any, condoned; Interim Application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay, if any, in filing the Appeal. ¶26

Sarika Akshay Ranade vs Akshay Arun Ranade and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 6-IA 696-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.696 OF 2024 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.825 OF 2022

¶5

Sarika Akshay Ranade … Applicant In the matter between Sarika Akshay Ranade … Appellant V/s. Akshay Arun Ranade & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Shubhankar Kulkarni i/by Chaitanya Nikte for the Applicant. Mr. Omkar S. Paranjape, Sunil G. Paranjape (through VC) for Respondent No.1.

¶7

Ms. S. K. Gajare-Dhumal, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

Digitally signed by MUGDHA MUGDHA MANOJ MANOJ PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2025.09.04 18:53:19 +0530

¶9

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 04TH SEPTEMBER 2025

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This is an Application for condonation of delay in filing Appeal.

¶12

By the order dated 04^th August 2022 this Court permitted the Appellant to convert the Revision Application into the Appeal. The order passed by this Court reads thus:

¶13

“1. The applicant is the original complainant. The FIR was lodged by applicant for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted by trial Court for the aforesaid offences. The judgment of conviction was challenged by the accused before the Sessions Court by preferring appeal which has been allowed and the respondents are acquitted.

1 of 2

Mugdha

2 6-IA 696-24.doc

The applicant(complainant) had preferred this revision application challenging judgment of acquittal.

¶19

The learned Advocate for respondents has urged preliminary objection that the revision application is not maintainable, since the applicant has remedy of preferring appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

Learned advocate for the applicant seeks permission to convert this revision application into appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

The request for conversion of the revision application into appeal is objected by the learned advocate for respondent. It is submitted that the revision itself is not maintainable. The request for converting it into appeal is made on preliminary objection by respondents.

¶22

Section 372 of Cr.P.C. provides an appeal for the victim. In the present case remedy of appeal under the said provision is available to the applicant.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant can be permitted to convert this revision application into an appeal. Appropriate amendment may be carried out within two weeks. On converting this application into appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., the matter may be placed before appropriate Court. The fact that the applicant had bonafide resorted to wrong remedy by preferring revision application could be taken into consideration in the event question of delay in preferring the appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. arises.”

¶24

The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has filed the present Application by way of abundant caution to avoid any objection in relation to limitation.

¶25

Considering the fact that this Court has already allowed the Appellant to convert the Revision into Appeal, the delay if any in filing the Appeal is condoned.

¶26

The Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

2 of 2

¶28

Mugdha

Sarika Akshay Ranade v. Akshay Arun Ranade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarika Akshay Ranade v. Akshay Arun Ranade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gaurav Sunil Gole vs State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Sopan Nanvare vs State of Maharashtra through Solapur Taluka Police Station and Ors.

Shrimant Anna Nagargoje vs State of Maharashtra

Jagannath Shankar Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Maruti Satam vs the State of Maharashtra

Arif Julfikar Mallick vs State of Maharashtra