Bhagyashri Dhotre W/O Subodh Gawande v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. Of P.S. Rajapeth, Amravati And Others
revn145.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO.145/2016 Bhagyashree Dhotre w/o Subodh Gawande ..vs.. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO Amravati and other -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P. W. Mirza, Advocate for applicant.
Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1-State. Mr. J. M. Gandhi, Advocate for non applicant nos.2 to 4. CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JUNE 15, 2016 The present revision arises out of the rejection of an application for cancellation of bail by the learned Sessions Court. An offence is registered vide Crime No. 282/2016 under Section 498A, 406, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
A fair statement is made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready for mediation. Mr.Gandhi, learned counsel for the non applicant nos. 2 to 4 is also not opposing the said request made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
From the hearing it is clear that the dispute basically pertain to the matrimonial discord. Therefore, I feel that the request made by both the counsel that the matter may be referred to the mediation is just and proper. Both the parties agree that Mr. J. J. Chandurkar, Advocate may be appointed as Mediator. The learned counsel further states that they will extend full cooperation to the learned Mediator. Hence, Mr. J. J. Chandurkar, Advocate is appointed as Mediator in the present matter. Parties to appear before the
revn145.16.odt learned Mediator on 04.07.2017. The learned Mediator is requested to submit his report within four weeks. Apart from the aforesaid, after hearing the parties to the application, I do not find any reason to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to upset the order rejecting the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail is already granted in favour of the non applicants on 26.05.2016. Insofar as the issue whether the applicants were present before the police authorities or they sent a proxy cannot be decided in this revision especially when no action is taken by the police authorities against the police personnel who has recorded the presence of the non applicants. Further the application for relaxation of the condition was already moved by the non applicants.
In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The revision application is therefore dismissed.
JUDGE kahale