Bombay High Court
Devlal S/O Narayan Kankale And 3 ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 31 October, 2017
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
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.
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
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
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
