WP 63/14 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 63/2014
1. Devlal s/o Narayan Kankale,
Aged abut 60 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Gavan, Tah. Shegaon, District Buldana.
2. Shaligram s/o Uttam Kankale,
Aged abut 56 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Gavan, Tah. Shegaon, District Buldana.
3. Madhukar s/o Ramchandra Kankale,
Aged abut 74 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Gavan, Tah. Shegaon, District Buldana.
4. Ananta s/o Ramrao Kankale,
Aged : Major, Occu. Agriculturist,
Aged abut 60 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Gavan, Tah. Shegaon, District Buldana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Shegaon Police Station,
District : Buldana. RESPONDE
NTS
Mr. S.D. Chopde, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Shyam Bissa, A.P.P. for the respondent.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Mr. S.D. Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, does not press prayer clause a) of the petition. He presses for prayer clause b) of the petition, i.e. that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon be directed to try and decide Criminal Case No.708/2007, Complaint Case No.21/2008 (State case) and Complaint Case No.26/2008 (filed by the petitioners), simultaneously. ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:27:57 :::
WP 63/14 2 Judgment
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the subject matter of dispute, in all the aforesaid three cases is identical. He submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon be directed to decide the complaint cases filed by the petitioners and Criminal Case No.708/2007 (filed by the State) simultaneously. He further submits that if Criminal Case No.708/2007 is decided first, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.
4. Mr. Shyam Bissa, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition. He submits that the evidence in Criminal Case No.708/2007 had commenced in 2010 and that one witness was examined, when the aforesaid petition was filed. He submitted that the said fact, was not disclosed by the petitioners in the petition, pursuant to which the proceedings were stayed. He further submits that it is the discretion of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to decide which case should be taken up first.
5. Perused the papers. It appears that the State has filed the aforesaid Criminal Case No.708/2007 as against the petitioners and that the said case is pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon. It also appears that two private complaint cases were filed by the petitioners, bearing Complaint Case No.21/2008 and Complaint Case ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:27:57 ::: WP 63/14 3 Judgment No.26/2008 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the accused in Complaint Case No.21/2008 have challenged the said complaint in revision and the revisional Court has stayed the proceedings of Complaint Case No.21/2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, evidence before charge has commenced in Complaint Case No.26/2008. It also appears that Criminal Case No.708/2007 filed by the State as against the petitioners had commenced and one witness was examined when the aforesaid petition was filed. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the said fact, i.e. of the commencement of the trial was not mentioned in the said petition. The aforesaid writ petition was admitted by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2014 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.708/2007, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shegaon, were stayed. Whether or not, the case instituted by the State is false or otherwise is a matter, which will be considered and decided by the trial Court.
6. It appears that all the three cases i.e. Criminal Case No.708/2007 and Complaint Case Nos.21/2008 and 26/2008, arises out of the same set of facts. In order to avoid conflicting decisions, it would be appropriate to direct that all the cases be decided by one Judge and as far as possible simultaneously. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:27:57 ::: WP 63/14 4 Judgment shall proceed with Criminal Case No.708/2007 and Complaint Case No.26/2008, as the proceedings in Complaint Case No.21/2008 are stayed by the revisional Court and shall not wait till the said revision is decided. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment.
JUDGE APTE ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:27:57 :::