Sneha Rinku Jeswani v. Shankarlal Vardichand Soni And ANR

28-WP-1842-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1842 OF 2022 Sneha Rinku Jeswani

...Petitioner

Versus

Shankarlal Vardichand Soni And Anr.

...Respondents

....

Mr. Pradeep D. Dalvi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Raju D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent - State.

CORAM

:

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE :

30th JUNE, 2022.

PER COURT :

1.

The Petitioner has challenged the Revision Application No.51 of 2022 before the Court of Sessions Kalyan challenging the order dated 27th May, 2022 passed by the Court of learned J.M.F.C. 2nd Court, Ulhas Nagar allowing defreezing of account. The revisional Court had issued notice to the opponents. Since interim relief was not granted, the petitioner had approached this Court apprehending that the amount is likely to be diversified by the Respondent therein. The revision application is pending before the Sessions Court. This Revision application is pending before the Sessions Court. This Court granted interim relief. 2.

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the revision application preferred by the Petitioner is pending before the Sessions Court and this Court may direct the Sessions Court to decide the said application expeditiously.

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2022.07.01 14:28:11 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Sajakali Jamadar

28-WP-1842-2022.doc 3.

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that within one day after the order of trial Court, defreezing the account, the respondents had diversified huge amount. If this Court directs the Sessions Court to decide, revision application, this petition may kept pending. The interim relief granted by this Court may be extended.

4.

Considering the facts of the matter, the Sessions Court is directed to decide the revision application preferred by the Petitioner expeditiously.

5.

The interim relief of stay granted by this Court shall continue till final disposal of the revision application preferred by the Petitioner.

6.

The Revision Application be decided within a period of eight weeks from today.

7.

Both the sides are expected to cooperate with Sessions Court for deciding the revision application.

8.

Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that, in the event the sessions Court passes an adverse order in the revision application preferred by the revision applicant it may be directed that the interim relief granted by this Court shall continue for further reasonable period. This submission is rejected. 9.

Writ Petition No.1842 of 2022 is disposed of accordingly. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) Sajakali Jamadar