Bombay High Court
Rakesh S/O. Krushnarao Hingankar ... vs Munna S/O Kamalprasad Shukla And ... on 4 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 revn190.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.190/2016
1. Rakesh s/o Krushnarao Hingankar,
aged 39 years, Occ. Private.
2. Sangita d/o Dhanraj Rewatkar,
(Sangita w/o Rakesh Hingankar),
aged 32 years, Occ. Private,
both r/o 23/1, Somwaripeth, Ngapur. .....APPLICANTS
...V E R S U S...
1. Munna s/o Kamalprasad Shukla,
aged major, Occ. Private,
r/o 5/B, Bezonbagh, Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra through
PSO P. S. Pachpaoli, Nagpur City,
Nagpur
(Deleted) ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B. W. Patil, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. A. Y. Sharma, Advocate for non applicant no.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 04.07.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. The present revision is filed challenging the order dated
30.07.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
thereby dismissing S.C.C. No.15772/2009 for want of prosecution.
2 revn190.16.odt
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone
through the certified copy of the roznama which is placed on
record. A perusal of the roznama shows that from 30.09.2013 till
12.02.2015 on various dates, the complaint which was filed by the
present applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act was fixed for return of warrant. Thereafter, it appears that on
15.02.2016, Vakalatnama on behalf of the non applicant-accused
was filed. The order shows that only on 30.04.2016, the
complainant was absent. Even on the said day, the accused was
also absent. On 19.05.2016, all the parties were also absent.
Thus, only on two occasions, the complainant was absent.
4. Looking to the aforesaid facts, I see it expedient to
invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of
Cr. P. C. The learned Judge of the Court below ought to have
granted an opportunity to the complainant to decide his case on
merit.
5. In that view of the matter, the revision application is
allowed. Order dated 30.07.2016 passed by J.M.F.C. Court No.
26, Nagpur in S.C.C. No.15772/2009 is set aside. S.C.C.
No.15772/2009 is restored to file.
3 revn190.16.odt
The present applicants and non applicant are directed
to appear before the learned Magistrate on 11.07.2017. Looking
to the fact that the complaint was originally filed in the year 2009,
it is expected from the learned Magistrate to try and dispose of this
complaint within six months from 11.07.2017. The learned
counsel appearing for the parties state that they shall extend full
cooperation to the learned Magistrate for disposal of the matter.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs.
JUDGE
kahale
