Gajanan S/O Manikrao Mandekar vs Smt. Deepashri Gajanan Mandekar ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 955 Bom

                                                                                              1                                                                       apl217.16




                                                                                                                                                                      
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                            NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                                                                             
                                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.217/2016

    Gajanan s/o Manikrao Mandekar,




                                                                                                                            
    aged about 48 Yrs., Occu. Asstt. Lecturer, 
    R/o Akshar Chhaya, Hari Om Colony, 
    Bhojapur, Kuhi, Tq. Kuhi, 
    Distt. Nagpur.                                                                                                      ..Applicant/Ori. Non-applicant.




                                                                                                   
                  ..Versus..

    1.            Smt. Deepashri Gajanan Mandekar, 
                  aged about 37 Yrs., Occu. Household.
                                                                 
                                                                
    2.            Abhinav s/o Gajanan Mandekar, 
                  aged about 15 Yrs., Occu. Student, 
                  through Natural Guardian Mother
                  Smt. Deepashri Gajanan Mandekar, 
                  

                  Nos.1 and 2, R/o C/o Shri Sharad 
                  Kashinath Bule, Near Shrikrishna Temple, 
               



                  adjacent to V.H.B. Ground, Kedia Plots, 
                  Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola. 

    3.            State of Maharashtra, 





                  through P. S.O., Civil Lines, 
                  Akola.                                                                                         ..Non-applicants/Ori. Applicants.
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
                Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the applicant. 
                Shri N.R. Tekade, Advocate for non-applicants 1 and 2. 
                Shri N.S. Khubalkar, A.P.P. for non-applicant no.3.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -





                                                                       CORAM  :  Z.A. HAQ, J.

                                                                       DATE  :     29.3.2016

    ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri B.N. Mohta, advocate for the applicant, Shri N.R. Tekade,

advocate for non-applicants 1 and 2 and Shri N.S. Khubalkar, A.P.P. for

non-applicant no.3.

2 apl217.16

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The non-applicants 1 and 2 have filed proceedings under Section 127 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. In these proceedings, the applicant filed his reply and

the matter proceeded. The examination-in-chief of non-applicant no.1 is over and

she is to be cross-examined by the applicant. At this stage, the applicant filed

additional reply to bring on record several facts which according to the applicant are

necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the matter. The Family

Court, by the impugned order, has rejected the application filed by the applicant

seeking permission to place on the record the additional reply.

4. Shri Mohta, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the Family

Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant on the

ground that there is no procedure which permits any party to file additional reply in

continuation of earlier reply, in proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

In my view, the application is not required to be considered because of the

facts of the present case. The learned trial Judge has recorded that the applicant

was aware of the facts which are pleaded in the additional reply, since 2010 and the

applicant has neither been able to show why he could not bring on the record the

facts earlier nor there is any explanation for the inordinate delay in bringing the facts

on the record.

3 apl217.16

5. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the applicant, I have

examined the additional reply which the applicant is seeking to file on the record.

There is nothing in the additional reply on the basis of which it can be said that the

applicant was prevented him bringing the facts on the record earlier.

6. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The application is

dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to be paid

by the applicant to the non-applicants 1 and 2 within four weeks. If the amount of

costs is not paid within stipulated time, the learned trial Judge shall pass appropriate

orders against the applicant considering it to be non-compliance of the order passed

by this Court.

At this stage, Shri Mohta, learned advocate has requested that the time to

dispose of the proceedings may be extended by further period of four months as the

applicant will not be able to attend the proceedings because of ensuing

examinations.

In my view, the request made on behalf of the applicant cannot be

considered by this Court directly and it will be open for the applicant to make

appropriate request before the learned trial Judge. If the request is made, the

learned trial Judge may consider it on the basis of the facts placed on the record.

JUDGE Tambaskar.