Dnyaneshwar S/O. Ramkrushna Sarap And Others v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, Yeoda, Tq. Daryapur Dist. Amravati
1 WP303.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 303/2017 Dyaneshwar S/o Ramkrushna Sarap and ors v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O Yeoda Dist Amravati and anr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for petitioners Shri S.S. Doifode,A.P.P for the respondent no. 1 Shri D.Ansari, Advocate for respondent no. 2 CORAM : P.B.Varale and M.G.Giratkar, JJ.
DATE : 01.8.201 7 .
Heard Mr. Joshi learned counsel for the petitioners.
The grievance of the petitioners is delay in the Sessions trial no. 16/2008. It is the submission of Mr. Joshi that the petitioners are facing trial before the learned Session Judge, Achalpur, Dist. Amravati for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in their advanced age, more particularly, petitioner no. 2 who is 78 years of age and the petitioner no. 4 who is 72 years of age. It is submitted by the learned counsel that on one or the
2 WP303.17 other ground the trial is delayed, as such it causes serious prejudice to the petitioners. Notice was issued by this Court on 4th May, 2017.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Doifode invited our attention to the communication forwarded by the office of public prosecutor informing that the complainant though was summoned to Court on 10/07/2017, it was informed to the learned trial Court that due to ill health, he was unable to attend the Court. Accordingly, the next day of the trial is scheduled on 22/08/2017.
Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant was examined on 11/09/2014 and thereafter he did not turn up. Learned counsel Mr. Ansari appearing for the respondent no. 2 (i.e. the complainant) submitted that it was not the intention of the respondent no. 2 to delay the trial but because of his ill-health, he was unable to attend the Court. Mr. Ansari learned counsel makes statement before this Court that the complainant would co-operate with the learned trial Court in expeditious disposal of the trial. He, further submits that if there is
3 WP303.17 some reason prohibiting the complainant to attend the court and if the reason is out of his control such as illhealth, only in such event, request would be made to learned trial Court for seeking some time otherwise the complainant would extend all the possible co-operation for the early disposal of the trial.
Accepting the statement, in our opinion, the grievance of the petitioners is redressed.
Nothing remains in the petition for passing further orders.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE A.P. Ansari