Bombay High CourtAPL/590/2017rejected

Sau. Vijaya @ Poonam Swapnil Katiyar v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Civil Lines Akola And Others

2017-09-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

apl590.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.590/2017 Sau. Vijaya @ Poonam Swapnil Katiyar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra through PSO P.S. Civil Linies, Akola, Tq. Dist. Akola.

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. O. D. Kakde, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. I. Damle, A.P.P. for non applicant-State. CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :

SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 Heard Mr. O.D.Kakde, Advocate for applicant in extenso.

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the non applicants by filing Criminal Application (APL) No.469/2016 has made several incorrect statements on oath and thereby obtained order dated 12.07.2016. He invited my attention to the relevant portion of the order to substantiate his submission.

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant, I have gone through the relevant pages. It appears that there are mistakes however those mistakes, according to me, are typographical in nature. Further, Division Bench of this Court on 12.07.2016, passed an order thereby the notices were issued to the non applicants and till that time, it was directed by the Division Bench that the charge-sheet should not be filed.

apl590.17.odt The order passed by the Division Bench does not reflect that any dates were considered by this Court while passing the said order.

Upon inquiry, Mr. Kakde, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the charge-sheet is already filed and in fact the Division Bench of this Court on 13.06.2017 disposed of the said Criminal Application No.469/2016 as withdrawn.

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that this is not a case wherein this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction. The application is therefore rejected.

JUDGE kahale