Anil Jaidayal Taneja v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. Koradi Police Station, Nagpur And Another

apl.602.16 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APL] No.602 of 2016 (Anil Jaidayal Taneja vs.

State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Koradi, Nagpur and another) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.1/State.

CORAM

: S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATE : 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2016.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that non-applicant No.2 is deliberately avoiding service of notice upon her and these tactics had been adopted by her even before the trial Court. He further submits that, however, he made painstaking efforts to see that the service was effected upon non-applicant no.2 in the proceedings before the trial Court. He further submits that even after service of the notice upon non-applicant no.2, the non-applicant no.2 has been prolonging that matter by seeking adjournments on one pretext or other, and the result is that the B-Summary Case No.2/2016 in Crime No.95/2015 registered at Police Station Koradi, Nagpur, has remained pending. In these circumstances, the

apl.602.16 2 learned Counsel for the applicant makes a prayer, which is incorporated already as an alternate prayer that a suitable direction be issued to the learned Magistrate for deciding BSummary Case in a time bound manner. The learned A.P.P. for the State submits that an appropriate order in the interest of justice be passed. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant and also the nature of alternate prayer, I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the alternate prayer is granted. Rather granting of alternate prayer would only sub-serve the cause of justice. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow this application.

The application is allowed and the alternate prayer of making the disposal of the B-Summary Case time bound is granted and it is directed that B-Summary Case No.2/2016 in Crime No. 95/2015 be decided by the learned Magistrate within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.

The application is disposed of in these terms. JUDGE *sdw

apl.602.16 3 C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of the original signed order.

Uploaded by: S.D. Waghmare Uploaded on : 27/09/2016 P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.