Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S.W. Munde, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. C.V. Thombre, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. Heard Mr. P.V. Balkhande, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5. 2. Admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith, by consent. Calling for the record and proceedings dispensed with, by consent. 3. The appellant is the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No. 588/2007, before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangakhed. The respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are the original accused. The said case was in respect of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to the persistent absence of the appellant before the trial court, the Magistrate by an order dated 30-4-2013, acquitted the accused, as contemplated under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"]. Bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Misc. Application No.101/2013, whereby he cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule and directed the petitioner to be arrested and taken in custody. The bail that was granted to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate was under clause (a) of the first proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as œthe Code?), which is popularly termed as œdefault bail?. 3. The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2013 in the course of investigation into C.R. No. 153/2013 registered at Deopur Police Station with respect to the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 34 of IPC. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-17-2014
Per Court: (S.S. Shinde, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This Criminal Application is filed with prayer for quashing the proceeding in Regular Trial Criminal Case No.162 Of 2010 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Brief facts leading to file this application, as disclosed in the application, are as under:- (i) On the basis of report lodged by Respondent No.2 - Uttam s/o Kamlakar Supekar, CR No. I 44/10 came to be registered with Kopargaon Police Station against the applicants for the offences punishable U/Section.s. 324, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of œThe Indian Penal Code, 1860?. (In short, the IPC.) After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed in the court and case is registered as RTC No.162 Of 2010. (ii) Respondent No.2 carries the business of selling and purchasing the buffalo. Respondent No.2 and the applicants are i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-20-2014
P.C.: 1. Heard Mrs. S.B. Warma, the learned Counsel holding for Mr. B.R. Warma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Heard Mr. P.P. More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.2. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Summary Criminal Case No. 346/2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Amalner. The case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.1 herein and in respect of offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that by a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, the order dated 21-12-2013, passed by the learned Magistrate, rejecting the application (Exhibit 85) made by the petitioners, for recording their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"], afresh, be quashed and set aside, and that the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-22-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. M.M. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr. R.V. Gore, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The applicant is the husband of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has filed an application for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"], in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kannad, wherein the present applicant is the respondent. The applicant has approached this Court, invoking its inherent powers, and praying that the proceedings instituted by the respondent no.1, which are pending before the Magistrate, be quashed. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the proceedings instituted by the respondent no.1 are nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S.V. Mundhe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The respondent waives service of notice for final hearing. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is a SahakariPatsanstha [Cooperative Society] (For short, "Society"). It is the complainant in STC No. 531/2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ahmednagar. The respondent is the accused in the said case. After the evidence was adduced and the examination of the respondent under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"] was done, the respondent submitted an application (Exhibit 60) dated 25-1-2012, praying that, witness summons be issued to the Chairman of the petitioner - Society - to appear before the court as a witness along with certain documents mentioned in the said application. On this, the learned Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-27-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhosale, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P.P. More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. U.N. Shete, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. I-94/2011, registered with Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad. The said case relates to offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC, 468 of the IPC, 471 of the IPC, 120(B) of the IPC, 406 of the IPC, 323 of the IPC, 506 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC. In the course of investigation, in all, twelve vehicles belonging to the petitioner came to be seized. The petitioner made an application before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad, praying for the return of the said vehicles to him. The application was made in view of the provisions of Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-28-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. All these criminal appeals are arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 08/06/2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2010. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2011 is filed by the accused (appellant herein) Suresh s/o Ghanshyam Chopade praying therein, to quash and set aside order of conviction for the offence punishable under section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal Nos. 654 of 2011 and 655 of 2011 are filed by the State thereby praying for enhancement of the sentence and for setting aside the order of acquittal of the accused and to hold that, the accused is guilty for the offence charged and he be punished accordingly. 3. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under: Complainant Shankarrao Salpe is an agriculturist by occupation. He is 40 years of age. He had 4 children. He has two daughters viz. Bhakti and Shraddha and son Vivek and deceased Shashikant was his second son. His house is situated at P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-28-2014
Oral Judgment: [S.S. Shinde, J.] Criminal Contempt Petition No.1 Of 2012. Mr. R.V. Wanwadi, Joint Civil Judge,(Civil Judge,) and Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad submitted Reference U/Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/with Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994, specified in Chapter XIII of Criminal Manual, through the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad vide Conf. O.No./Judl.Cri./558/2012 dated 28th September, 2012, to the Registrar (Judicial ) of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. Said reference is registered as Criminal Contempt Petition No.1 Of 2012. 2. Mr. R.V. Wanwadi, Jt.C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. has decided Regular Trial Case No.182 Of 2007 (The State V/s. Tulshiram and Ors.) on 13th January, 2012 and, thereby, acquitted all the accused from the offences punishable U/Section/s 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused No.1 Tulshiram Namdeo Salve is the husband of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jan-29-2014
1. The Revision Petitioner was objector in Misc. Application No.135 of 2007 filed by Respondent No.4-Sangeeta alias Nirmala widow of Ramrao Patil which she filed for Heirship Certificate (hereinafter Nirmala to be referred as œApplicant? and present Petitioner Akush as œNon-Applicant?). The other Non-Applicants in the Application were present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur before whom the Misc. Application was moved, rejected the application for Heirship Certificate. The Applicant Sangita carried the Appeal No.29 of 2011 and it came up before District Judge-1 Ahmedpur, who allowed the appeal and directed issuance of Heirship Certificate. Thus the Non-Applicant Ankush has now brought this Revision Petition. 3. To understand controversy, the facts in brief can be stated to be as under: (A). The Applicant Sangita filed the application claiming to be widow of deceased Ramrao Patil who died on 27th April, 2006. It was claimed that Ramrao Pa...
Tag this Judgment!