Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Haroon Ebrahim Patel vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 11 February, 2020

Author: A. M. Badar

Bench: A. M. Badar

                                                           11-WP-6448-2019.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6448 OF 2019

 HAROON EBRAHIM PATEL                                )...PETITIONER

          V/s.

 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.                   )...RESPONDENTS


 Mr.Rajesh Khobragade a/w. Ms.Gayatri Nayak, Advocate for the
 Petitioner.
 Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent - State.
 Ms.Janhavi Karnik, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.


                               CORAM   :    A. M. BADAR, J.

                               DATE    :    11th FEBRUARY 2020

 P.C. :



 1                By this petition, the petitioner, who happens to be

 original complainant, is praying for directing the learned

 Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, Mumbai, to dispose off the

 revision petition pending on his file in a time bound manner and

 preferably, within a period of four weeks.


 avk                                                                    1/4




::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020                ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:15:41 :::
                                                                   11-WP-6448-2019.doc


 2                Heard        the   learned   counsel     appearing          for     the

 petitioner/ original complainant. He argued that the petitioner is a

 senior citizen and in the complaint filed by him, wherein it is

 alleged that the respondents herein have committed several

 offences, the process may be issued. In submission of the learned

 counsel for the petitioner/original complainant, by filing revision

 petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai, that order

 issuing process came to be challenged by the respondents

 herein/accused persons. By pointing out roznamas of the learned

 revisional court, the learned counsel for the petitioner/original

 complainant argued that there is virtually no progress in the

 revision petition for a considerable period. He further urged that

 order of staying the proceedings before the learned trial court is

 operating in that revision petition right from 9 th October 2018,

 and therefore, the hearing of the revision petition needs to be

 expedited.



 3                As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the

 respondents herein/original accused argued that the roznamas


 avk                                                                           2/4




::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020                       ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:15:41 :::
                                                             11-WP-6448-2019.doc


 sought to be relied upon by the petitioner himself shows that the

 court was always busy in either some time bound matters or in

 some other urgent matters such as bail applications or anticipatory

 bail applications. The learned counsel appearing for the

 respondents herein/original accused argued that adjournments

 were not at the instance of the respondents herein/original

 accused, and therefore, prayer made in the petition cannot be

 granted.



 4                I have considered the submissions so advanced and

 perused the roznamas filed with the petition. It is seen that ad-

 interim order granting stay to the order of issuance of process is

 operating in the revision petition for more than one year.                At the

 same time, it is also noticed that the revision petition is not being

 adjourned at the instance of the respondents herein/ original

 accused. It appears that the learned revisional court is busy in

 some other matters including time bound matters and that is how

 the revision petition could not be heard.




 avk                                                                     3/4




::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020                 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:15:41 :::
                                                              11-WP-6448-2019.doc


 5                It is seen that even the petitioner herein/original

 complainant never applied to the learned revisional court to

 expedite hearing of the revision petition in the wake of operation

 of ad-interim ex-parte stay in the matter. This court is not aware

 about pendency of matters before the learned revisional court, in

 order to grant out of turn hearing, as sought for, in this petition.



 6                In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed off

 with the following order :

                                    ORDER

i) The petitioner is given liberty to apply to the learned revisional court for early hearing of the revision petition and if such application is made, then the learned revisional court to decide the issue of hearing the revision petition, considering the pendency of time bound matters and other urgent matters on the file of the said court.

ii) The petition is disposed off accordingly.

(A. M. BADAR, J.) avk 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 12/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:15:41 :::