Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant original accused No.1, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.26/2011, thereby convicting the appellant [original accused No.1] for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to under go imprisonment for life and to pay fine of RS.500/- [Rs. Five hundred], in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six [6] months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (a) Complainant Kalpana Parmeshwar Ghogare, r/o. Tungi [Bk], Tq. Ausa was the wife of accused No.1. She was married to accused No.1 prior to four years of the incident and has two daughters namely Sneha and Gokuli. Accused No.2 Baburao is her father-in-law, accused No.3 Sakhubai is her mother-in-law and accused No.4 Sunita is her sister-in-law. On 22.12.2010, at about 10.00 p.m., accused No.1 made demand of Rs.40,000/- and ill treated complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. All the applications are filed under section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in C.R. Nos. 71/13 and 73/13 registered in Dharangaon Police Station, Dharangaon for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 477-A, r/w. 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and sections 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act' for short). 2. Learned counsel for respondent/accused Shri. Gangakhedkar from Criminal Application Nos. 4527 and 4529 of 2013 argued the matters. The learned APP also argued and he supported the applicant by submitting that the chargesheet could not be filed due to absence of custody of the applicants and the investigation could not be completed. Learned counsel Mrs. Rashmi Gaur for respondent/accused in Criminal Application Nos. 4526 and 4528 of 2013 submitted that her client has taken away the brief fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Order: 1. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment of the Additional Collector, Latur dated 12.01.2015 delivered in the proceedings bearing Case No.2014/GPN/CR/684 by which the Petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Devangra, Taluka Chakur, District Latur, has been disqualified as Sarpanch and at the same time, he has been removed as a member of the Village Panchayat and his position has been declared vacant. 2. I have heard the respective counsel at length. I am adverting to only those submissions which are relevant at this stage and in the light of the order that I intend to pass. 3. The submissions of Mr.Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, are summarized as under: (a) The Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch for the seventh time pursuant to the elections held in December, 2012. (b) The Financial Year as enshrined under the law is from 01st April to 31st March in a given year. (c) A complaint has been lodged with the Additional Collector, Latur ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant -original complainant and respondent No.1- accused. 2. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that judgment of the trial court acquitting respondent No.1 - original accused cannot be maintained. According to him, the trial court erred in invoking Section 23 illustration (f) of the Indian Act of 1872, (hereinafter referred to as "Contract Act" for short). He submits that the complainant has proved that respondent No.1- accused had received money from him for securing the job, but he did not secure the job for the complainant in Nirmal Bang Securities Company (hereinafter referred to as "Company" for short), where the accused was working as Area Manager. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that against such transaction cheque issued, bounced. The matter was relating to private service and not public service and so illustration (f) of Section 23 of the Contract Act could not have been invoked by the trial Court. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Respondents No.1 and 2, A.S.I. and Police Constable respectively, were facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 330, 324, 323, 354, 166 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in clubbed trial R.C.C. No.157/1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. In the prosecution of R.C.C. No.157/1998 filed by Police Station, Basmatnagar, the complaint filed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, R.C.C. No.424/1993 was merged, in which evidence before charge had been recorded and charge was also framed. Thereafter, in R.C.C. No.157/1998, respondents accused No.1 and 2 filed application Exhibit 46 invoking Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Police Act in brief), claiming that the complaint filed by Magistrate as well as the charge sheet filed by the police regarding the offence alleged was time barred as the incident complained of that they had beaten complainant Shantabai and her husband and outraged modesty of the lady while she...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. These appeals were admitted and taken up for final hearing on 13th January 2015. Both the appeals are between same parties.2. Appellant (original plaintiff) in Appeal from Order No.82/2014 is challenging the order dated 7.8.2014, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, below Exhibit 35 in Special Civil Suit No.18/2012, thereby holding that Latur Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Special Civil Suit No.18/2012 filed by the appellant and directing that the plaint should be returned to be filed in proper and competent Court at Nilanga, District Latur.3. In Appeal from Order No.86/2014, same appellant-plaintiff has filed Appeal from Order, challenging the order dated 20.8.2014, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur below Exhibit 29 in Special Civil Suit No.23/2012, thereby holding that Latur Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directing that the plaint should be returned for being filed to the proper and compet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Per Court:1. This matter was heard on 12/12/2014 and this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, has observed in paragraph Nos. 1 to 5 as follows:1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar in Gram Panchayat Dispute Application No.40 of 2014.2. The petitioner is a Sarpanch of village Prabhu Wadgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. A requisition was moved on 9.9.2014 for taking up a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Having served the same on the Tashildar, a notice dated 9.9.2014 was issued for convening a special meeting on 15.9.2014. The said motion was passed by 6:2 vote count and as such, the motion was supported by 3/4th majority of the voters as is mandated under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act (the said Act) with regard to a lady Sarpanch.3. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Collector. One of the grounds for appeal was that one b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. This petition is by defendants, questioning an order passed under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A and 6C of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the counter claim filed by the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 561 of 2014, which was filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act for perpetual injunction, was ordered to be excluded with liberty to file fresh suit by the defendants-petitioners. 2. The few facts giving rise for filing the writ petition are as under:- Respondent No.1 to the present petition, claims to have purchased the suit property which consists of plot and building constructed thereon admeasuring 201.78 sq. meters situated at Khdamba (Bk), Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 3. It is claimed by respondent No.1-plaintiff that vide registered sale deed dated 25/02/2014, the suit property was purchased by him from defendant No.3 for consideration of Rs.36,00,000/- and after the same, his name came to be mutated in the revenue reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, resident of village Kangara, Tq. and Dist-Osmanabad for writ of mandamus or any other order of like nature to Respondent No.6 Police Inspector, Police Station, Bembli to register F.I.R. on the information given by the Petitioner on 21st June, 2014. Prayer is that the investigation should be conducted by C.B.I. in the F.I.R. to be registered relating to incident dated 26th May, 2014. Further prayer is that the Respondents should pay compensation to the Petitioner and other villagers of Kangara for illegal arrest, unlawful confinement and detention by Respondent No.5 Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad and Respondent No.6 Police Inspector, Police Station, Bembli. 2. According to the Petitioner, Women's Self Help Group had made grievances against illegal sale of liquor in the village Kangara. Police Patil of the village also, on 24th May 2014, informed the Police Station that some villagers are involved in illegal s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.M. Badar, J.: 1. By this appeal under Section 378 (1)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant State is challenging the judgment and order dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.254/1994 thereby acquitting respondents / accused of the offences punishable u/ss.302, 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts leading to the prosecution of respondents accused can be summarized thus: [a] Informant PW-1 Bhagwat Waman Gaikwad is resident of village Ashvi in Taluka Sangamner of District Ahmednagar. His daughter Shakuntala married respondent / accused no.1 Appasaheb Balajee Parkhe on 20.5.1994 at village Ashvi. Respondent / accused no.2 Radhakrushnais brother, respondent / accused no.3 Hausabai is mother whereas respondent / accused no.4 Balajee is father of Appasaheb Parkhe. Marriage of Shakuntala with respondent / accused no.1was an arranged marriage settled with the help of Indubai Gaikwad and h...
Tag this Judgment!