Chandrashekar Sing Rampratap ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2984 Bom

                                       1                   Cri.WP.No.405.06.odt




                                                                         
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                 
                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 405 OF 2006


    Chandrashekar Sing s/o Rampratap Sing




                                                
    Age : 29 years, Occu : Business,
    R/o. Near Bus Stand, Ward No.6,
    Gadchandur, District : Chandrapur.                       Petitioner




                                      
    VERSUS
    1.   The State of Maharashtra,
                               
    2.    Anilkkumar s/o. Ramnagina Jaiswal,
           Age : 28 years, Occu : Business,
                              
           R/o. M.E.L. Ward No.10,
           Sanjay Nagar, Chandrapur.

    3.    Avinash s/o Ramnagina Jaiswal,
      


           Age : 28 years, Occu : Business,
   



           R/o. M.E.L. Ward No.10.
           Sanjay Nagar, Chandrapur.

    4.     Shriram Transport Finance,





            Company Limited, through its 
            Senior Manager,
            Mr. Pravin s/o Prabhakarrao Motiwale,
            Age : 35 yrs, Occu : Service, 
            Senior Manager,





            R/o 14, 3rd Floor, Pushpakunj Complex,
            Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.                             Respondents

    Mr. Ruchir Wani, Advocate h/f Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the 
    Petitioner.
    Mr. N.T. Bhagat, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
    Mr. R.R. Sancheti, Advocate h/f Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for 
    Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

    atu/June.2016 




      ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2016 23:59:51 :::
                                               2                    Cri.WP.No.405.06.odt




                                                                                 
    None for Respondent No.4.
                                             ....

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 17/06/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. I have heard the strenuous submissions of Mr. Bajaj, learned

Advocate for the petitioner who has criticized the impugned judgment

of the learned Magistrate dated 22.03.2006 and the judgment of the

learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated

16.05.2006. Mr. Bajaj submits that both the orders are perverse,

erroneous and unsustainable. The Magistrate could not have handed

over the possession of the truck bearing No. MH-34-M-2411 to the

respondent Mr. Anilkumar Ramnagina Jaiswal and Mr. Avinash

Ramnagina Jaiswal. He further submits that the "suprutnama" bond

of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rs. eleven lac) is a meagre amount and hence the

impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.

2. I have considered the submissions of Mr Mantri, learned

Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None

appeared for respondent No. 4. Both the learned Advocates on the

atu/June.2016

basis of the Rozanama (daily status) from the District Court Website

pertaining to the pending cases, submit that the said case is still

pending.

3. This Court, while issuing notice to the respondents on

13.07.2006, directed that the status-quo as on the date of the order

of this Court, be maintained. Mr. Mantri categorically submits that

the concerned truck is in the possession of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. It is confirmed by the learned Advocates representing the

respective sides that Regular Criminal Case No.308 of 2006 is

pending before the learned Magistrate at Aurangabad.

5. The order of status-quo passed by this Court is in force for

practically 10 years. Proceedings before the learned Magistrate are

pending from the year 2006 towards. Ends of justice, in my view,

would be met, if the order of this Court is continued for a period up

to 23.12.2016 with a direction to the learned Magistrate to decide the

pending cases in between the petitioner and the respondents with

atu/June.2016

regard to the truck mentioned above within the said time span.

6. As such, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the

learned Magistrate to decide the Regular Criminal Case No. 308 of

2006, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably on or before

23.12.2016. Needless to state, all the litigating sides shall extend co-

operation to the learned Magistrate and shall refrain from seeking

adjournments on frivolous grounds.

7. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

atu/June.2016