Ganesh Babulal Shrinagar And Others v. Namrata W/O Ganesh Shringar And Another

1802apl421.12.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 421 OF 2012 (Ganesh Babulal Shrinagar & others Vs. Namrata w/o Ganesh Shrinagar & the State) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M. V. Singh, Adv. h/f Shri Prajapati, Adv. for applicants. Shri S. M. Bhagde, A.P.P. for respondent No.2/the State. CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 18th FEBRUARY, 2015 1.

Advocate Shri M. V. Singh holding for Shri R. R. Prajapati, learned Counsel for the applicant informed the Court that Advocate Shri Prajapati is out of town and, therefore, he sought adjournment.

2.

It was pointed out to him that learned Advocate is out of town ordinarily cannot be a ground for granting an adjournment in a criminal application filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C., which is about three years old and which has been listed 41 times, and something more would have to be shown by him.

3.

Shri Singh was unable to show further justification for absence of Shri Prajapati before the Court in this matter. It was also pointed out to him the names of other Advocates S/Shri R. M. Patwardhan and P. K. Dhomne, who are also appearing as Counsel for the

1802apl421.12.odt 2/2 applicants and they can also argue the case. Shri Singh maintained silence over it. He was, therefore, requested to appear before this Court as and when this matter is called out as per its turn.

4.

Now, this matter has been called out, but Shri Singh has chosen to remain absent.

5.

It is obvious that the applicants are not interested in prosecuting this application and, therefore, this application deserves to be dismissed.

The application stands dismissed.

JUDGE wwl