Bombay High Court
Anuradha Ravindra Irale vs 1. Ravindra Daulatrao Irale on 24 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.665 OF 2016
Anuradha Ravindra Irale,
Age-50 years, Occu-Household,
PETITIONER
R/o N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad
VERSUS
1. Ravindra Daulatrao Irale,
Age-51 years, Occu-Service,
R/o N-4, B-74, Cidco, Aurangabad,
2. Gangubai Daulatrao Irale,
Age-75 years, Occu-Household,
R/o N-4, C-Sector, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
3. Bhagwant S/o Daulatrao Irale,
Age-55 years, Occu- Not known,
R/o N-4, C-Sector, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
4. Pandit S/o Daulatrao Irale,
Age-45 years, Occu-Not known,
R/o N-4, C-Sector, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
5. Vidya Bhagwant Irale,
Age-45 years, Occu-Not known,
R/o N-4, C-Sector, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
6. Jaswant Bhagwantrao Irale,
Age-75 years, Occu-Not Known,
R/o N-4, C-Sector, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
7. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS
Mr.M.K.Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.B.A.Dhengle, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
khs/JUNE 2016/665-d
Mr.N.T.Bhagat, APP for respondent No.7.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 24/06/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 04/03/2016 below
application Exh.57 and 58 delivered by the learned Magistrate, by which
the prayer for examining three witnesses has been rejected.
3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment of the Revisional
Court dated 06/05/2016 by which Cri.Rev.Appl.No. 51/2016 has been
dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at
length.
5. Issue is as regards examining 3 witnesses by applications Exh.57
and 58 filed u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C.
6. The petitioner desired to examine her real married sister Ratna
khs/JUNE 2016/665-d
Sunil Gaikwad, her mother Urmilabai Laxmanrao Pawar and her brother
Purushottam Laxmanrao Pawar.
7. The witness Purushottam did not appear for leading evidence on
several dates and hence the learned Magistrate closed his evidence on
04/03/2016 by rejecting Exh. 58. Exh.57 has been rejected on the
ground that the proceedings are about 5 years old. There are general
directions from the High Court to expeditiously decide old matters and
the names of Ratna and Urmilabai have not been shown as witnesses in
the list of witnesses.
8. Mr.Deshpande strenuously submits that since she had narrated
various episodes of illtreatment at the hands of the respondent
husband, to her sister and mother, both of them are material witnesses.
The learned Magistrate has closed the evidence of the prosecution only
because Purushottam did not appear. If an opportunity is granted, the
petitioner would examine Purushottam, Ratna and Urmilabai, one after
another and without seeking adjournments. Refusal to permit their
examination would seriously affect the case of the petitioner.
9. Mr.Dhengle, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos. 1 to 6 submits that unless the names of witnesses are mentioned
in the list to be supplied in advance, no permission can be granted u/s
khs/JUNE 2016/665-d
311 of the Cr.P.C. So also Purushottam himself did not appear for
leading evidence and hence permitting the petitioner to examine
Purushottam would amount to granting undue liberty to the petitioner.
10. He further submits that the learned Magistrate as well as the
Revisional Court has considered this issue in details and has held that
the order of closing evidence of the prosecution does not call for any
interference.
11. In my view, it is trite law that unless laches are attributed to the
conduct of a litigant and unless it is concluded that the litigant desires
to delay the matter with oblique motives, the order of closing the
recording of evidence is not to be lightly passed. The pending
proceedings have been lodged in 2011 and cannot be said to be very old
or pending for a long time. The endeavour of the learned Magistrate to
expeditiously decide cases which are 5 years old is appreciable, but not
at the cost of the rights of the litigants.
12. The Revisional Court could have imposed conditions on the
petitioner by permitting her to bring the 3 witnesses. I am unable to
agree with the conclusions of the Revisional Court as well as the Trial
Court since it would preclude the petitioner from leading evidence of her
brother, sister and mother with whom she has shared her purported
khs/JUNE 2016/665-d
harrowing experience of illtreatment.
13. As such, this petition is allowed. The orders dated 04/03/2016
passed by the learned Magistrate are set aside. Application Exh.57 and
58 are allowed under the following conditions :-
[a] The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.6,000/- by depositing it before
the learned Magistrate within 4 weeks and the 6 respondents
herein shall withdraw the said amount in equal proportion
without conditions.
[b] The petitioner shall produce her witness Purushottam on the
approaching date before the learned Magistrate for examining him.
After his examination is concluded, the petitioner shall produce
Ratna and followed by her she shall produce Urmilabai.
[c] The petitioner will not be entitled for any adjournment on any
count in leading evidence of these 3 persons. In the event any of
these persons do not appear on a date so granted by the learned
Magistrate, he would be at liberty to proceed further in the case.
[d] The statement of the petitioner is recorded that besides the said 3
witnesses, the petitioner shall not produce any more witness.
14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/JUNE 2016/665-d
