2011WP516.11-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2011
PETITIONER :- Shri Dnyaneshwar S/o Pandurang
Umredkar, Aged about 49 yeras, Occ:
Private, R/o E-96, Sujata Nagar, Housing
Board Colony, Dist.: Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through the Police
Station Officer, Panchpawli Police Station,
Nagpur.
2. Smt. Sashikala W/o Dnyaneshwar
Umredkar, Aged Major, Occ: Service, R/o
C/o Office of Commissioner of Income Tax-
4, Nagpur, MECL Building, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. S. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.R.Chutake, A.P. P. for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Yogesh Nayyar, counsel for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT.REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATED : 20.11.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 02:04:45 :::
2011WP516.11-Judgment 2/3
2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 14/02/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Nagpur below Exhibit-12, by which the respondent-wife's interim application for permitting access to the petitioner's house and to the articles lying in the house, came to be allowed.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits, that the trial had come to a fag end and that arguments were over and the matter was posted for judgment, when this Court passed the interim order dated 07/02/2012 i.e. staying the order dated 14/02/2011. He submits that because of the stay order the learned Magistrate could not pronounce the judgment in the case.
4. Considering the aforesaid, without going into the merits of the order, dated 14/02/2011 passed by the learned Magistrate, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition, by directing the Trial Court to proceed with the case and pass appropriate final order/judgment in the said case. Since there is an interim order dated 07/02/2012, the same is continued till the judgment is rendered in the said case.
5. It is made clear, that this Court has not considered the impugned order dated 14/02/2011 on merits and as such, all contentions of the parties are kept open.
::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 02:04:45 :::
2011WP516.11-Judgment 3/3
6. The learned Magistrate whilst finally deciding the case, shall neither be influenced by the order dated 14/02/2011 nor the interim stay granted by this Court on 07/02/2012.
7. Since the case is of the year 2010, the learned Magistrate shall finally decide the case, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
9. All parties to act upon the authenticate copy of this order.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 02:04:45 :::