Bombay High Court
Sunil Jhawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 March, 2021
Author: Surendra P. Tavade
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Surendra P. Tavade
3.WP.713, 714.2021&715.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.713 OF 2021
Digitally ALONG WITH
Aarti
WRIT PETITION NO.714 OF 2021
signed by
Aarti G. Palkar
G. Date:
Palkar
2021.03.18
17:28:46
+0530
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.715 OF 2021
Sunil Jhawar ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents
Mr. Nitin Pradhan i/b. Mr. Vedchetan Patil for the Petitioner in all petitions.
Mr. Pravin P. Chavan, Spl.PP in WP/714/2021.
Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.
DATE : 18th MARCH, 2021.
P.C. :
1. Mr. Nitin Pradhan, learned Sr.Counsel alongwith Mr. Vedchetan Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all 3 petitions submitted that though certain grounds are raised in these petitions seeking quashment of the FIR bearing CR No.754/2020 registered with Shikrapur Police Station, Pune Rural for ofences under Sections 411, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 109, 323, 506, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the MPID Act, 1999 in Writ Petition No.713/2021; FIR bearing CR No.0673/2020 registered with Deccan Police Station, Pune for ofences under Section 420, 464, 465, 468, 471, 477, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Writ Petition No.714/2021 and FIR bearing CR No.306/2020 registered with Alandi Police Station, Pune Rural for ofences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the MPID Act, 1999.
2. The petitioner is also raising certain legal grounds in respect of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002(Act of 2002) i.e. the various Aarti Palkar 1/3
3.WP.713, 714.2021&715.2021.doc provisions of the Act and the formalities prescribed under the Act and as these are only the legal submissions, no prejudice would cause to the respondent authorities if the petitioner is permitted to amend the petitions.
3. In view of the submissions of Mr. Pradhan, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the petitioner, we allow the petitioner to amend the petitions. Necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. Needless to state that the learned counsel on record assisting Mr. Pradhan, learned Sr.Counsel and undertakes to supply a copy of the amendment to the learned Spl.PP and learned APP by tomorrow. Learned Spl.PP Mr. P.P. Chavan prayed for some time to fle his reply to the petitions as it was initially fled as well as to the amendment to be incorporated today. Two weeks time is granted to Mr. Chavan, learned Spl.PP to fle reply. Reply to be fled by 31.03.2021. Post the petitions for further consideration on 07.04.2021. Mr. Chavan, learned Spl.PP undertakes to supply copy of the reply to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in advance.
4. Mr. Pradhan, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for extension of interim protection vide order passed by this Court on 02.03.2021 and more particularly in Paragraph 4 of the order, we accepted an undertaking given to this Court by the petitioner that the petitioner would fle appropriate proceedings before the appropriate judicial forum within one week. It was further observed that the petitioner to give an intimation to the respective authorities 24 hours in advance and on fling of such proceeding before the appropriate judicial forum, the judicial forum to decide that proceedings/application within one week. Then, it was again made clear in our order in the concluding part of Paragraph 4 that "Thus, we make it clear that the interim protection granted by this Court is for a period of two weeks from tomorrow. Accordingly, we direct the respondent No.1-State not to take coercive action against the petitioner for a period of two weeks i.e. from 3.3.2021 till 17.3.2021".
5. Mr. P.P. Chavan, learned Spl.PP brought to our notice that the petitioner failed to follow the undertaking given to this Court. Neither any proceeding was submitted to the competent judicial forum or any intimation Aarti Palkar 2/3
3.WP.713, 714.2021&715.2021.doc was given to the respondent authorities. As such, the petitioner, who has committed a serious breach of an undertaking to this Court, is not entitled for the extension of protection granted to him by this Court is the submission of Mr. Chavan.
6. Mr. Nitin Pradhan, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner had not fled any application before the learned Sessions Judge, but it was fled in this Court. We are of the clear opinion that the petitioner by taking this specious plea cannot justify his act which is clearly in our opinion is breach of undertaking given to this Court. On this count, we are not inclined to extend the protection granted to the petitioner and we make it clear that the extension granted to the petitioner on 02.03.2021 no more survives.
7. Post the petitions for further consideration on 07.04.2021.
8. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
Aarti Palkar 3/3