← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1593/2025disposed off

Priyanka Pankaj Gonjari v. State Of Maharashtra

2025-03-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shivkumar Dige2 pages

S.S.Kilaje 508-WP-1593-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1593 OF 2025 Priyanka Pankaj Gonjari ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra ... Respondent .............

Mrs. Prabha Badadare, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP for the State.

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATED : 21st MARCH, 2025.

P. C. :

1.

By this Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Court, Thane below Exhibit-17 in Special (ACB) No. 50 of 2015. By the said order the learned Judge has declined to record the question put up by learned counsel for petitioner to prosecution witness in cross examination.

2.

It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that allegations leveled against the petitioner / accused in Special (ACB) No. 50 of 2015 are that to settle marital dispute between the complainant and her daughter-in-law. She had demanded bribe. So the question asked to the prosecution witness was relevant, hence requested to allow the petition. 1/2

S.S.Kilaje 508-WP-1593-25.doc 3.

Learned APP submits that learned counsel for the petitioner before Trial Court had asked the question to the prosecution witness i.e. first informant in respect of divorce petition filed by her son against his wife so, it was not relevant question as charges under Section Prevention of Corruption Act are leveled against the petitioner. It is a tactics to prolong the matter, hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 4.

I have heard both the learned counsel. The allegations against the petitioner are that she had demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant for not taking any action against the complainant, on the complaint filed by her daughter-in-law. Considering this fact, the question asked by the learned counsel for the petitioner was relevant as it was fact in issue. In view of above, I pass following order.

ORDER

i.

The petition is allowed.

ii.

The question in respect of divorce petition filed by the complainant's son against his wife is relevant and petitioner can ask this question.

5.

The writ petition is disposed of.

( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date:

2025.03.26 16:19:21 +0700 SONALI SATISH KILAJE 2/2