Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. 3] By the present application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants prayed that the proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 12 of 2009 filed by respondent no.2 herein i.e. original complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside and the applicants be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4] The factual matrix of the matter are as follows:- The applicants herein are the original accused in R.C.C. No. 306 of 2008 filed by respondent no.2, namely Smt. Latika i.e. original complainant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar, on 26.9.2008. After inquiry under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. 3] By the present application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants prayed that the proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 12 of 2009 filed by respondent no.2 herein i.e. original complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside and the applicants be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4] The factual matrix of the matter are as follows:- The applicants herein are the original accused in R.C.C. No. 306 of 2008 filed by respondent no.2, namely Smt. Latika i.e. original complainant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar, on 26.9.2008. After inquiry under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have heard Shri V.J. Dixit and Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocates on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No. 2, respectively and also the learned AGP, on 04-02-2015, 11-02-2015, 17-02-2015, 25-02-2015, 03-03-2015 and 04-03-2015. 3. The petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 29-11-2014 passed by respondent No.1-District Collector, Latur thereby disqualifying the petitioners on an application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986. 4. The litigating parties to this petition, were earlier before this Court since the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 1451 of 2014. The request made by the petitioners before respondent No. 1 - District Collector in the disqualification application case No. 2013/NAPA/KAVI-661, for referring certain documents to the hand writing expert, had been rejected. By order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. On 25.08.2015, this Court has passed the following order: 1. The learned Advocates submit on instructions from their respective clients present in the Court that they have no objection if this Court hears these matters. 2. These matters have been heard for almost two hours. 3. Stand over to 07.09.2015 at 02:30 pm as PARTHEARD, at the request of the learned Advocates.? 3. The Petitioners in the first petition challenge the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court at Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.47/2008 filed by the Petitioners was dismissed. 4. The Petitioners in the second petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.97/2008 filed by these Petitioners has been dismissed. 5. The Petitioners in the third petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are questioning the correctness of the judgment and order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Revision Application No.66 of 2010, dated 5.10.2011, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad was pleased to dismiss the Revision filed by the present petitioners. The petitioners are also questioning the order, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad, dated 4.5.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.83 of 2009, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad was pleased to issue process against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the petitioners, petitioner no.1 is the Secretary and petitioner no.2 is the Joint Secretary of one Kamaleshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pimpalgaon (K), District Osmanabad, which is a registered Trust. The said Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The proceeding is filed by the landlord against the judgment and decree of Rent Appeal No.10 of 2011 which was pending in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge Aurangabad. The Principal District Judge has set aside the judgment and decree of possession given on the ground of default by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad in Rent Suit No.20/2006. Both the sides are heard. 2. The suit was filed in respect of property bearing Municipal House No.4/3/42 (CTS No.4395) situated at Machhali Khadak, Aurangabad. It is the case of the plaintiff that on monthly rent of Rs.751/- the suit premises was given to the defendant for using it as a shop. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was never regular in making payment of monthly rent and he is willful defaulter. It is contended that as the defendant had not paid the monthly rent of 36 months prior to the date of the notice, statutory notice dated 29-9-2005 was given by the landlord to the defendant, tenant a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.218/1995, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years is given to the appellant and total amount of fine of Rs.1500/- is imposed on him. Both sides are heard. 2. The deceased Sangita was a daughter of complainant. She was given in marriage to appellant about three years prior to the date of incident. It is the case of complainant that after few days of marriage, the deceased had started complaining to him and to relatives on parents side that the husband and his relatives were giving ill-treatment to her. She had disclosed that her husband had asked her to bring Rs.1000/- from her parents as he wanted to purchase bed for him. She had also disclosed that husband was harassing her and even giving beating to her on pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard both sides. 2. The present appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Hingoli in Special Child Case No.09 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 02/04/2015 for the offences punishable under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") and section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under section 4 of POCSO Act. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. It was directed that in case the fine amount is recovered, compensation of Rs.20,000/- be paid to the victim child. 3. Case of the prosecution is that on 23/3/2014 at village Jawala Bk., Tq. Sengaon, the appellant has committed rape i.e. penetrative sexual assault on a five years old mino...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.77/1986, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shripur and against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.151/1996, which was pending in District Court, Dhule. The suit filed by present appellant for relief of specific performance of contract of sale of agricultural land is dismissed by the Courts below. The Appellate Court has given direction to defendant to return back the earnest money, but the plaintiff is held to be liable to pay the mesne profit. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows :- The suit was filed in respect of 6 Acre portion of agricultural land bearing Gat No.69/A situated at village Sangvi, Tahsil Shripur, District Dhule. The portion is eastern side of the property and on western side of this portion, there is remaining portion of Gat No.69/A belonging to defendant. There is a well...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
P.R. Bora, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the F.I.R. No. 3/2013, registered at Nandurbar City Police Station on 05.01.2013 and has also prayed for setting aside the charge sheet filed on the basis of the said F.I.R. in Regular Criminal Case No.23/2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 32B and 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 1946 Act for short) and Sections 420 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Though the petitioner was initially praying for setting aside the entire charge sheet, during the course of hearing of the present petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is restricting his petition only to the extent of prayer clause (D), which reads thus : (D) In the alternative the action/F.I.R. to the extent of Section 420/511 I.P.C. may be quashed with all steps inv...
Tag this Judgment!