Vivek Laxman Bodas v. Anil R. Yardil And ORS

1 2.cri.wp.2975.15.doc jdk

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2975 OF 2015 Vivek Laxman Bodas .. Petitioner Vs.

Anil R. Yardil and Ors.

.. Respondents ....

Mr. Umesh Mankapure Advocate for Petitioner Mrs. A.S. Pai A.P.P. for the State ....

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : AUGUST 06, 2015 P.C.:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing prayer clauses (a) and (c) made in this petition. Thus, this petition is being heard only in relation to prayer clause (b).

It is seen that the petitioner had filed a complaint before J.M.F.C. Miraj which is bearing RCC No. 84 of 2011. The said case is under Sections 468, 470, 471 and 474 of IPC. The

2 2.cri.wp.2975.15.doc J.M.F.C. Miraj then issued direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Pursuant to that, F.I.R. was registered at Miraj City Police Station. However, thereafter the accused preferred revision before the Sessions Court Sangli being Criminal Revision No. 110 of 2011. By order dated 22.6.2011 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli allowed the revision and set aside the order directing the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Miraj on 28.3.2011 in RCC No. 84 of 2011, however, the learned Sessions Judge directed the learned Magistrate to undertake steps for directing the complainant to present complaint at the appropriate Court.

Thereafter the petitioner preferred application before J.M.F.C. Miraj that the Dy. Superintendent of Police Miraj be directed to produce all the papers pertaining to the investigation of the said case in the Court. The said application came to be allowed by order dated 21.7.2014. However, the papers were not produced before the said Court, hence, the petitioner preferred another application before J.M.F.C. Miraj with the same prayer. In the said application, the learned

3 2.cri.wp.2975.15.doc J.M.F.C. Miraj by order dated 27.12.2014 directed to issue letter / reminder to Dy. S.P. Miraj calling record of RCC No. 84 of 2011. However, even thereafter the papers were not produced by Dy. S.P. Miraj, hence, the petitioner preferred one more application with the very same prayer, whereupon, the learned J.M.F.C. Miraj by order dated 30.1.2015 directed that notice be issued through Superintendent of Police Sangli making the same returnable on 28.2.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that even thereafter the papers have not been produced by the Dy. S.P. Miraj before the learned J.M.F.C. Miraj. The learned A.P.P. states that she will inform Dy. S.P. Miraj to comply with the orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Miraj within a period of six weeks from today. In view of the above statement, nothing further remains in the petition and the same is disposed of accordingly.

Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry.

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI,J.] [SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] kandarkar