Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2305 (BOM)

Sugandhi Hire Parab v. Police Inspector

2013-11-11

U.V.BAKRE

body2013
Judgment : Heard Mr. Kerkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Pinto, the leaned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents no.1 and 3. 2. The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner seeks leave to drop respondent no.2 since he was not party before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji as also before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa. 3. Leave granted as prayed for. Respondent no.2 stands dropped. The learned Counsel for the petitioner to carry out amendment forthwith. 4. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 5. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20/03/2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Panaji in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.102/2011/D as also the order dated 04/04/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No.46/2012. 6. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.102/2011/D was filed by the petitioner under Sections 155(2) and 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected by order dated 20/03/2012. Aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court, the petitioner had filed Criminal Revision Application No.46/2012. Since on 04/04/2013, the petitioner remained absent before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, the said Revision Application No.46/2012 came to be dismissed for default. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.61/2013 before the same Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa for recall of the order dated 04/04/2013 which was dismissed as not maintainable. 7. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have dismissed the Revision Application for default and ought to have heard and disposed of the same on merits. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04/04/2013 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Since the matter is to be remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, this Court need not go into the correctness of the impugned order dated 20/03/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Panaji. 8. In the result, Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed. (a) The impugned order dated 04/04/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No.46/2012 is quashed and set aside. The said Criminal Revision Application stands restored back to the file. (b) The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall dispose of the same on merits, after hearing both the parties. (a) The impugned order dated 04/04/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No.46/2012 is quashed and set aside. The said Criminal Revision Application stands restored back to the file. (b) The learned Additional Sessions Judge shall dispose of the same on merits, after hearing both the parties. (c) Parties to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa on 25/11/2013 at 10.00 a.m. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 10. Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.