Shyam Chandiramani And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4440 OF 2015 Mr. Shyam Chandiramani & anr.

... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra.

... Respondent.

--- Mr. J.A. Udaipuri i/b. Udaipuri and Company, advocate for petitioner. Mr. Shashank Choudhary i/b. Mr. Sachin V. Masurkar, advocate for respondent No. 2.

Ms. A.M. Malhotra, APP for State.

--- CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : MARCH 29, 2017 P.C.:

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

1/4

Being aggrieved by the order dated 27th March, 2015 rejecting the application filed by the Petitioners below Exh. 17, the Petitioner has approached this Court. The application below Exh. 17 was filed by the Petitioner seeking permission to defer with the crossexamination of P.W. 1 until and unless substantive evidence of all other prosecution witnesses is recorded. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 27th March, 2015. The learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the order dated 27th March, 2015 is justified. It primarily appears that the Court had also observed that the preliminary issue before the Court was as to which of the parties was in possession of the said property. A query was made as to whether the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were filed before taking over the possession by the Petitioner or after taking over the possession. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceeding was filed after possession was taken over. At this stage, 2/4

the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought liberty to challenge the maintainability of the proceeding. However, at this stage, the proceedings cannot be reverted back to square one. The learned Magistrate has observed that the respondent would be prejudice in the eventuality that the cross-examination of one witness is deferred till examination-in-chief of the second witness is recorded and hence, in the interest of justice has rejected the said application. At this stage, it would not be necessary to go into the legality of the order, which was passed in proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Suffice it to say that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai shall conclude recording of evidence in C.C. No. 16/N/2012 within 3 months from the date of the receipt of this order without granting any unwarranted adjournments to either of the sides. It is further made clear that all contentions are kept open.

3/4

The petition stands disposed of with the above directions. Rule is discharged accordingly.

Needless to say that the interim relief granted vide order dated 10th December, 2015 stands vacated.

Office to communicate this order to the concerned court forthwith.

(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J) 4/4