All Civil Appeal

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 ..... Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ..Appellant. versus Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle and another ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Smt. V.R. Bhosale , Addl.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. 3rd July, 2015. P.C. : The Appellant to remove the office objections within a period of three weeks from today. Stand over to 24th July, 2015. (A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavale and Anr. ...Respondents ***** None for the Appellant Mr. N. B. Patil - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 02nd FEBRUARY, 2023 P. C. :- None present for the contesting parties, even though matter is fixed for final hearing. Matter be kept on 09th March, 2023 under the caption 'for direction'. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 10: SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2023.03.13 14:28:18 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavale and Anr. ...Respondents ***** Mr.Sandip Kagade i/b. Mr.Anand Patil, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia – APP for the Respondent No.2-State. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : th 9 MARCH, 2023 P. C. :- Learned Advocate Shri.Anand Patil is busy before some other Court. The Court of JMFC has acquitted the Accused by invoking the powers of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Cr.P.C."] as per the order dated 26th December, 2012. It is for not taking steps by the Complainant. Matter be kept on 16th March, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle and Anr. ...Respondents ***** Mr. S. R. Ghanavat i/by Mr. Anand S. Patil - Advocate for the Appellant Mr. H. J. Dedhia - APP for the Respondent-State ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 16th MARCH, 2023 P. C. :- As learned Advocate Shri Anand S. Patil is busy before some other Court, adjournment is sought. Matter be kept on 18th April, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 15: Tauseef 12-APEAL.16.2015.doc Digitally Date: 2023.04.25 12:10:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale …Appellant Versus Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 18th APRIL, 2023 P.C. Mentioned out of turn. Learned Advocate for the Appellant seeks accommodation. The Appeal is already admitted. Matter be kept on 14 th June, 2023. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 17: HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2023.07.28 00:34:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.16 OF 2015 Shabu Bhimappa Dudhale Age 56 years, Occupation-Business R/o 2114, "E" Ward, Kawala Naka Kolhapur ...Appellant vs. Vinayak Appasaheb Padavle Age 36 years, Occupation-Business R/o 823, "E" Ward, Line Bazar, Kolhapur … State of Maharashtra …Respondents Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Appellant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATED : 18TH JULY 2023 JUDGMENT : Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant-complainant. No one is present on behalf of the Respondent-accused. Issue involved in this Appeal is as under : "Whether power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised at post evidence stage when accused remained absent ?" 10.a16.2015.odt The appeal was already admitted on 5th December 2014. The action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated. The Farad Sheet dated 6th June 2023, mentions that Respondent No.1-accused has furnished surety of Rs.10,000/- on 30th June 2015. However, no one has appeared in this Appeal. It is travesty of justice, that appeal involving trifle issue remained pending for eight years. Reasons may be different. Perused the impugned order dated 26th December 2012, passed by 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur in Summary Criminal Case No.4161 of 2006. The accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by taking recourse to Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When this order came to be passed, the matter was fixed for recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint was filed in the year 2006 bearing SCC No.4161/06. Roznama indicates accused was in the habit of avoiding process of this Court. The following are the important dates :- January 2007 Process was issued. 17/08/2010 Non bailable warrant issued as accused remained absent. 23/03/2001 Accused produced in execution of Non bailable warrant Application for bail Plea recorded 24/03/2011 Accused released on bail. 30/03/2011 Evidence of complainant. 7/04/2011 No cross order. Close pursis. Adjourned for statement under Section 313 of the Code. 14/07/2011 Non bailable warrant issued 1/02/2012 Cash surety forfeited Issued non bailable warrant. 30/10/2012 Non bailable warrant issued through Superintendent of Police 26/12/2012 Complaint dismissed for want of taking steps. So from events what transpires is as follows :- (a) The complaint is pending since 2006. (b) Accused has no respect for law. (c) He has not responded to Court summons earlier to plea and thereafter also. (d) Trial Court was required to issue non bailable warrant on various occasions. (e) Prior to recording of plea, non bailable warrant was served and Respondent-accused was released on cash bail. (f) Non bailable warrant could not be served even through Superintendent of Police. On this background, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 15th Court, Kolhapur passed an order dated 26/12/2012 thereby acquitting the Respondent-accused by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate noted following facts in the order :- (a) The complainant was absent persistently on 15/06/2012, 4/08/2012, 25/09/2012 and on 30/10/2012 (para 2). (b) Report of Superintendent of Police indicates that accused was outside his house (para 3). (c) Complainant has not taken steps under Section 82, 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (para 4). Now the question is whether it was appropriate for the learned Magistrate to take recourse to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If we read those provisions, we may find the following ingredients :- (a) Case is fixed for hearing. (b) Complainant is absent. (c) His presence is required. (d) Court does not feel it necessary to adjourn the matter. Then only complaint can be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand 1 , has dealt with this issue. The purpose is to check the dilatory tactics of the complainant, principle of speedy trial is recognised. 9. However, if the entire facts and circumstances of the case are considered, there is reason to believe that the learned Magistrate has hastily passed that order. It is a matter of record that accused has no respect to the law. And on every occasion, the complainant was 1 (1998) 1 SCC 687 10.a16.2015.odt required to take steps. Execution of non bailable warrant is not an easy formality. At the same time, it is also true that unchallenged evidence could not have been used by the trial Court unless it was put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, trial Court ought to have given weightage to the fact that patience of complainant was tested every time. If it is so, the trial Court waited and could have given direction to the complainant to take steps. The judgment of acquittal need not be interfered rightly. But the power under Section 256 of the Code should not be exercised only for the purpose of disposing of the cases. Trial Court has not considered the efforts taken by the complainant every time to secure presence of the complainant. The order deserves to be set aside. Certain directions for speedy disposal are required as the complaint is pending since 2006. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :- O R D E R (a) The Appeal is allowed. (b) The order passed by the Court of 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur dated 26th December 2012, is set aside. Shiv 6/7 The complaint is restored to file. (c) The complainant is directed to appear before the 15th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur on 28th July 2023, at 11 am and is directed to take necessary steps. (d) Once the Respondent appears, the trial Court is directed to keep the matter on day-to-day basis. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and anr. .. Appellants vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents ---------------- Mr. R.S. Deshpande a/w Mr. Vijay S. Thakur for the Appellants. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State. Mr. Vinayak Narale, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambernath Division, Thane City present. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2021 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants. He seeks leave to amend so as to implead the complainant as a party Respondent. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. The ofence is registered against the Appellants in respect of C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane for the ofences punishable under Section 354-D of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(W) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the said Act' for short) on the basis of FIR given by the complainant-Ms. Apeksha Dalvi. 14.APEAL.574-21.doc Ms. Apeksha Dalvi is a President of RPI (Women Wing) of Thane District. The Appellant No.1 is the President of RPI Maharashtra State and the Appellant No.2 is the President of RPI Shahpur Taluka. It is the case of the Appellant No.1 that he being a Vice President of RPI Maharashtra appointed one lady as a President of Shahpur Taluka RPI, without consulting the complainant. The complainant was therefore annoyed and hence the submission of Appellant that a false case is registered against them. It is alleged that the Appellant No.1 has posted some messages in a whatsapp group of RPI Thane District which are derogatory in nature and insulting. Even the Appellant No.2 has posted some messages on the whatsapp group which afects the dignity and honour of the complainant and hence the ofence is registered. The trial Court rejected the application for bail. It is contended by learned counsel for the Applicants that the basic ingredients of ofence under Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act are not made out. The Appellant No.2-Jayvant Bhagawan Thorat belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The trial Court therefore held that so far as the ofence under the said Act alleged against Jayvant is concerned, the same may not be attracted in his case. As against the Appellant No.1-Farooq Sattar Dalvi, the trial Court held that prima facie Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act would be attracted. As against both the Appellants, trial Court observed that Section 354(D) of IPC will be applicable. 14.APEAL.574-21.doc It is the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that all insults or intimidations to a person will not be an ofence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The ofence under Section 3(1)(R) of the said Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation must be with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that the whatsapp messages posted were not with the object of humiliating any member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. According to him, the Appellants as well as the complainant happen to be members are of the RPI Political party. Assuming the language used in the posts on whatsapp is derogatory, it cannot be said to have been posted with an intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. It is just that the complainant was annoyed with the Appellants taking some decisions without consulting her which led to the exchange of the messages. The intent therefore is absent. Learned APP for the State submitted that the Appellants have not co-operated with the investigation and the bar of Section 18 of the said Act will be attracted in the present case. He submitted that for the reasons mentioned by the Appellate Court, this is not a ft case for grant of anticipatory bail. 3 Of 4 Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that they are willing to co-operate with the investigation but as there is no protection in their favour, they apprehend that they will be arrested forthwith. That was the only reason according to them that they did not present themselves before the Investigating Ofcer. Prima facie I fnd substance in the contention of the Appellants that the ofence under Section 3(1)(R) is not made out. Issue notice to the complainant, returnable on 24.08.2021. In addition to the Court's notice, the Investigating Ofcer to inform the complainant about the next date of hearing. The Appellants in my opinion deserve to be granted interim protection. In the event the Appellants are arrested in connection with C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane, they shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. The Appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or contact, threaten or infuence the complainant in any manner. The Appellants in the meantime to co-operate with the investigation and present themselves before the Investigating Ofcer on 14th, 16th and 18th August, 2021 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. List the matter on 24.08.2021. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 6: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Mr.Vijay S. Thakur, for the Appellants. Mr.N.B. Patil, APP for State. Smt.Apeksha Dalvi - Respondent No.2 present. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2021 P.C. The matter pertains to the assignment of Hon'ble Anuja Prabhudessai, J. On 12/08/2021, the matter was listed before this Court in view of the office order. The complainant appeared and mentioned the matter. The matter be placed before appropriate Court on 25/08/2021. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: Megha 11_apeal _574_2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. Vijay S. Thakur with Mr. R.S. Deshpande for the Appellants. Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2021. P.C.:- It is stated that matter does not pertain to the assignment of this Court. Registry to verify and place it before appropriate Court. Stand over to 07/09/2021. Interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) MEGHA Digitally signed by Date: 2021.09.01 14:29:07 S PARAB

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ....APPELLANT V/S The State Of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT Mrs.Prabha Badadare i/b Vijay Thakur for Appellant Ms. P.N.Dabholkar, APP for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 7th September, 2021 P.C. : The Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Court. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 FAROOQ SATTAR DALVI AND ANOTHER )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT Mr.R.S.Deshpande a/w. Mr.Vijay Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J. DATE : 28th APRIL 2022 P.C. : 1 Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the appellant. Vide order dated 12th August 2021 this Court had granted interim protection which is continued from time to time. Let the interim protection so granted be continued till the next date. 2 Stand over to 16th June 2022. (V. G. BISHT, J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi & Anr. ….Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 22nd DECEMBER, 2022 P.C. : The learned counsel for the appellants states that he will supply a spare copy within a period of two days from today. Once the spare copy is supplied, issue fresh notice to the respondent No.2, returnable on 8.2.2023. Interim order granted vide order dated 12.8.2021 to continue till then. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE 10:38:05 +0530

Order - Status 17: 1 of 1 16-apeal-574-21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 __________ __________ Farooq Sattar Dalvi & Anr. ..Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Vijay S. Thakur for Appellants. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 8 FEBRUARY 2023 PC : Await service on the Respondent No.2. Stand over to 29/03/2023. Interim order granted earlier to continue till the next date. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Gokhale

Order - Status 19: 27.Apeal.574.2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi and another Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Adv.R.S.Deshpande with Vijay Thakur, Advocates for Appellant. Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, APP, for State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12th June 2023 Office note indicates that notice was issued to Respondent no.2 on 16th January 2023. Service report is awaited. It is noticed that this appeal is pending in this Court since long. Hence concerned Police Station is directed to take steps to intimate/serve Respondent no.2. Stand over to 5th July 2023. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, to continue till then. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST PC :

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. Respondents Mr. R.S. Deshpande i/by Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : th 5 JULY, 2023. PER COURT : Learned APP on instructions submit that the intimation about the hearing of this Appeal has been given to Respondent No.2. However, she has requested for time as she is undergoing some treatment. This Appeal is pending in this Court since 2021. By way of last chance the Appeal is adjourned till 12th July, 2023. Stand over to 12th July, 2023. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Digitally signed by SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Date: 2023.07.07 10:53:40 +0530

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents …. Mr. R.S. Deshpande a/w Mr. Vijay S. Thakur, Advocate for Appellant. …. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Saili Dhuru, Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.s CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 12 th JULY, 2023. P.C.:- Learned APP has tendered report from the concerned Police Station indicate that the intimation be given to the complainant and request is made by the complainant for providing legal aid. Report is taken on record. Learned Ms. Saili Dhuru is appointed to represent for Respondent No.2. Stand over to 19th July, 2023. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2021 Farooq Sattar Dalvi And Anr. ...Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ...Respondents Mr.R. S. Deshpande a/w Mr.Vijay S. Thakur Advocate for Appellants. Ms. Saili Dhuru Advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent – State. …. …. ETHAPE DNYANESHWAR ASHOK Digitally signed by ETHAPE ASHOK Date: 2023.07.20 17:32:17 +0530 CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 19th JULY, 2023. P.C.:- This is an Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act"). The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 10th July 2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan rejecting the application for anticipatory bail preferred by Appellants in connection with C.R. No. I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane City on 20th June 2021. The FIR was registered at the instance of Respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. D.A.Ethape 11-APEAL-574-2021.doc The case of the prosecution is that, the first informant is the office bearer of political party and belongs to Scheduled Caste. She is also member of Thane District Rural Whats APP group. The accused are also member of the same political party and whats-app group. The accused posted messages on those whats-app groups which was derogatory nature. Appellant No.2 belongs to scheduled caste. Hence, offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) of the Atrocities Act cannot be attracted against him. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail has observed that, Section 3(1)(w) is not attracted in this case. However, the application was rejected on that ground that Section 3(1)(r) is attracted qua the appellant No.1. The offence under Section 354(D) of IPC is bailable. Learned Advocate for Appellant submitted that, neither Section 354(D) of IPC nor the provision of Atrocities Act invoked against the appellants are attracted in this case. All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the said Act indicate that the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation must be with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The whats-app messages posted were not with the object of humiliating any member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Appellants as well as the complainant happen to be members of same political party. Assuming the language used in the posts on whats-app is derogatory, it cannot be said to have been posted with an intent to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. The complainant was annoyed with the Appellants taking some decisions without consulting her which led to exchange of messages. The intent therefore is absent. Learned APP and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 submitted that, the nature of message posted by the accused was derogatory and sent with a view to insult and humiliate the complainant as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Prima facie offences are made out and the Appellants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. It appears that, the alleged message was on account of animosity between Appellants and the complainant. Appellants as well as complainant are members of the same party and same whats-app group. In any case, the offences under the Atrocities Act cannot be applied against Appellant No.2 as he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Section 354(D) of the IPC relates to offence of stalking. Prima facie it is debatable whether the said provision can be applied in the present case. Section 3(1)(r) of Atrocities Act, provides that, whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Case of the complainant is that, message was sent on whats-app group. The record does not indicate that, the alleged message was forwarded to intentionally insult or intimidate the complainant because she was belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In these circumstances, bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act would not be an impediment to grant relief sought in this Appeal. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2021 is allowed. (ii) Interim order dated 12th August 2021 is confirmed. (iii) Impugned Order dated 10th July 2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1101 of 2021 is set aside. (iv) In the event of arrest of the appellants in connection with C.R. No.I-152 of 2021 registered with Hill Line Police Station, Thane, City, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount. (v) Appeal stands disposed off. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.235 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2012 Gokuldas R. Pai .. Appellant Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr .. Respondents Mr. Abdul Rab,for the Appellant. Ms. M. R. Bhoir,for the RespondentMCGM. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 29, 2012 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the open plot bearing Survey No.39, City Survey No.1 at Link Road, Malad(W). On 21/03/2011, a letter was addressed by the Assistant Engineer(Bldg and Fact)P/North Ward to the plaintiff, wherein it was contended that there was a complaint received from one Jitendra Sutar that the plaintiff had placed three containers in the open plot and was using the said plot as a yard. By the said letter, he was directed to remove the containers within 24 hours, failing which they would be ata removed by the Municipal Corporation at his risk and costs. The plaintiff filed suit challenging the said letter and sought perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from acting upon the same. By Notice of Motion, he sought temporary injunction of the same nature. The Notice of Motion was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had no title over the property. 2 Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant pointed out that about the said property, one Krishna Patil and others had filed S. C. Suit No. 2788 of 1983 against him and that suit was dismissed in default. The plaintiff had taken out Notice of Motion No. 747 of 2010 for setting aside the dismissal and for restoration of the suit to file. However, that Notice of Motion was also dismissed by order dated 06.05.2010. Learned counsel contends that in view of this, the plaintiff is in adverse possession over the suit property for the last about 30 years. It is not necessary to make any observation about his claim about adverse possession because the real owner of the property is not a party to the suit. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation could not explain under which provisions of law the letter dated 21.03.2011 was issued by the Assistant Engineer to the plaintiff. She concedes that it was not a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under any provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The Corporation does not claim :3: 235.12.ao title over the property. It is not clear who is Jitendra Sutar, who had made a complaint to the Assistant Engineer about parking of the said containers on that plot. It is not clear whether the Municipal Corporation has any right to issue such letter in respect of certain private property, particularly, when there is no allegation of any unlawful construction. Therefore, the said letter, prima facie, appears to be unauthorized, but it certainly gives a threat and creates apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that he may be dispossessed without following due process of law. Therefore, it is necessary to give him some protection pending the suit. 3 In view of the above, the impugned order stands set aside. The Notice of Motion is allowed. The respondents are hereby restrained from taking any action against the plaintiff in respect of the suit property without following due process of law pending the suit. 4 As the appeal itself is finally disposed of, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA,J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO.649 OF 2019 Vaibhav Dattaram Mantri & Anr. ... Appellants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Karansingh Rajput and Hrishikesh A., Advocate for the Appellants. ..... Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr.Rohan V. Bhosle h/f. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 .... CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A.M.BADAR JJ. DATED : 2nd MAY 2019. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. The learned APP waive notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Counsel Mr.Sandeep Karnik waives notice for Respondent No.3. 2 In the meantime, as an adinterim measure, we direct that the seal put on the concerned premises be removed and the possession of the premises be handed over to the Appellant. The Appellants shall not part the premises with any other person and shall remain in the premises till further orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings. The Appellants shall abide by any such direction that might have been passed in the present proceedings. This Order shall remain in operation till the next date. 3 Stand over to 3 rd June 2019 for hearing along with the connected matters. 4 All the concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order. (A.M.BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 763 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 12/2019, 157/2019(APPST), 207/2019, 208/2019, 514/2019, 580/2019, 606/2019, 664/2019, 729/2019 with APPA. 637/2019, APEAL. 1486/2018, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018, 1538/2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders __________________ Mr. R. K. Bhagatsingh, for the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 763/2019. Mr. Chaitanya Pendse i/b Siddhi Bhosale, for the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 514 / 2019. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi & Dinesh Parmar i/b DSR Legal, for Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 157/2019. Mr. Rajiv Patil, Sr. Counsel a/w Sangeeta Salvi & Muzaffar Baig, for the Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 12/2019. Mrs. S. V. Sonawane, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY, & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : JUNE 3, 2019 PC. On the prayer of the learned counsel 18 - APEAL. 763-19, connected matters for Respondent No. 3, four weeks further time is granted to file reply. On earlier occasion also, time was granted. If no reply is filed by the next date, the matter shall proceed in accordance with law. S.O. 1st July, 2019. Adinterim order to continue till the next date. Sd/ [INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.] Sd/ [A. M. BADAR, J.] Vinayak Halemath

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS avk 2/10 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 SURESH DATTA KAKDE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2018. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018. Mr.Chaitanya Pendse i/b. Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Rajput Karansingh a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Ambre, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2019. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms.Sangita Salvi, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019. Mr.Mayur Faria, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in this batch of appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act). In these appeals, orders dated 26th October 2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.840 of 2018, 841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 arising out of MPID Case No.5 of 2001 have come to be challenged. In this batch of applications, it appears from the impugned order, that these three applications were filed by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. Directions were issued by the Designated court inter alia allowing the said applications and directing respondent no.2 (Competent Authority) with the assistance of respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, EOW, Unit VII, to take physical possession of rented premises from various tenants/purchasers of tenanted rights/premises locked. 2 At the very outset, senior learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent no.3/applicantavk 7/10 accused had filed such an application did not possess the necessary "locus standi" and further without making the appellants herein (tenants), who are necessary parties, parties in the application before the Designated court. On perusal of the impugned order and on query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/applicantaccused, he fairly admitted that the present appellants were necessary parties, since directions had been sought in the said applications for their removal and for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from them. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the other contentions placed, we are prima facie satisfied that the present batch of applications, at the behest of respondent no.3/applicantaccused ought not to have been entertained by the Designated court, for the simple reason that necessary parties against whom directions had been sought had not been impleaded in the said applications. We are constrained to record our concern as to how the Designated court proceeded to pass the impugned order, without avk 8/10 ensuring that the parties who were likely to be adversely impacted, upon the directions sought for being issued. 4 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the applicant(accused) had failed to implead necessary parties in his application before the Designated court. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 26th October 2018. 5 We, further, grant liberty to the respondent no.3, if he is so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings by making all necessary parties, party to such proceedings, but at the same time, leave open the issues raised by the appellants herein, questioning the locus standi of the applicantaccused/respondent no.3 for initiating such a proceeding. 6 Before parting, we hereby direct that the order of the Designated court relating to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and/or other directions must be adhered to and complied by the appellant. 7 We further direct that by various interim orders passed from time to time, this court had directed continuation of possession in the hands of the appellants subject to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing. We observe that those directions shall continue subject to any modification that may be made by the Designated court from time to time, if such circumstance arise. 8 In terms of the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed. With disposal of these appeals, all pending applications also stand disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS avk 2/10 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 SURESH DATTA KAKDE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2018. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018. Mr.Chaitanya Pendse i/b. Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Rajput Karansingh a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Ambre, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2019. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms.Sangita Salvi, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019. Mr.Mayur Faria, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in this batch of appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act). In these appeals, orders dated 26th October 2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.840 of 2018, 841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 arising out of MPID Case No.5 of 2001 have come to be challenged. In this batch of applications, it appears from the impugned order, that these three applications were filed by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. Directions were issued by the Designated court inter alia allowing the said applications and directing respondent no.2 (Competent Authority) with the assistance of respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, EOW, Unit VII, to take physical possession of rented premises from various tenants/purchasers of tenanted rights/premises locked. 2 At the very outset, senior learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent no.3/applicantavk 7/10 accused had filed such an application did not possess the necessary "locus standi" and further without making the appellants herein (tenants), who are necessary parties, parties in the application before the Designated court. On perusal of the impugned order and on query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/applicantaccused, he fairly admitted that the present appellants were necessary parties, since directions had been sought in the said applications for their removal and for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from them. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the other contentions placed, we are prima facie satisfied that the present batch of applications, at the behest of respondent no.3/applicantaccused ought not to have been entertained by the Designated court, for the simple reason that necessary parties against whom directions had been sought had not been impleaded in the said applications. We are constrained to record our concern as to how the Designated court proceeded to pass the impugned order, without avk 8/10 ensuring that the parties who were likely to be adversely impacted, upon the directions sought for being issued. 4 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the applicant(accused) had failed to implead necessary parties in his application before the Designated court. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 26th October 2018. 5 We, further, grant liberty to the respondent no.3, if he is so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings by making all necessary parties, party to such proceedings, but at the same time, leave open the issues raised by the appellants herein, questioning the locus standi of the applicantaccused/respondent no.3 for initiating such a proceeding. 6 Before parting, we hereby direct that the order of the Designated court relating to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and/or other directions must be adhered to and complied by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. avk 9/10 7 We further direct that by various interim orders passed from time to time, this court had directed continuation of possession in the hands of the appellants subject to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing. We observe that those directions shall continue subject to any modification that may be made by the Designated court from time to time, if such circumstance arise. 8 In terms of the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed. With disposal of these appeals, all pending applications also stand disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2018. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018. Mr.Chaitanya Pendse i/b. Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Rajput Karansingh a/w. Mr.Hrishikesh Ambre, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2019. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ameya Tamhane i/b. Ms.Sangita Salvi, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019. Mr.Mayur Faria, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 18th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in this batch of appeals filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act (hereinafter referred to as MPID Act). In these appeals, orders dated 26th October 2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.840 of 2018, 841 of 2018 and 842 of 2018 arising out of MPID Case No.5 of 2001 have come to be challenged. In this batch of applications, it appears from the impugned order, that these three applications were filed by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. Directions were issued by the Designated court inter alia allowing the said applications and directing respondent no.2 (Competent Authority) with the assistance of respondent no.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, EOW, Unit VII, to take physical possession of rented premises from various tenants/purchasers of tenanted rights/premises locked. 2 At the very outset, senior learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the respondent no.3/applicantavk 7/10 accused had filed such an application did not possess the necessary "locus standi" and further without making the appellants herein (tenants), who are necessary parties, parties in the application before the Designated court. On perusal of the impugned order and on query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/applicantaccused, he fairly admitted that the present appellants were necessary parties, since directions had been sought in the said applications for their removal and for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises from them. 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, without entering into the merits of the other contentions placed, we are prima facie satisfied that the present batch of applications, at the behest of respondent no.3/applicantaccused ought not to have been entertained by the Designated court, for the simple reason that necessary parties against whom directions had been sought had not been impleaded in the said applications. We are constrained to record our concern as to how the Designated court proceeded to pass the impugned order, without avk 8/10 ensuring that the parties who were likely to be adversely impacted, upon the directions sought for being issued. 4 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on the ground that the applicant(accused) had failed to implead necessary parties in his application before the Designated court. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 26th October 2018. 5 We, further, grant liberty to the respondent no.3, if he is so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings by making all necessary parties, party to such proceedings, but at the same time, leave open the issues raised by the appellants herein, questioning the locus standi of the applicantaccused/respondent no.3 for initiating such a proceeding. 6 Before parting, we hereby direct that the order of the Designated court relating to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and/or other directions must be adhered to and complied by the applicantaccused/respondent no.3. avk 9/10 7 We further direct that by various interim orders passed from time to time, this court had directed continuation of possession in the hands of the appellants subject to deposit of rent with the Economic Offences Wing. We observe that those directions shall continue subject to any modification that may be made by the Designated court from time to time, if such circumstance arise. 8 In terms of the aforesaid directions, all appeals stand disposed. With disposal of these appeals, all pending applications also stand disposed off. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2019 VAIBHAV DATTARAM MANTRI AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1486 OF 2018 VASUDHA BHIKAJI BHARATI AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1538 OF 2018 JYOTI VASANT BADHA AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2018 LATA RAJARAM JAGDALE AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2018 MAHESH CHANDRAKANT GAWADE & ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1536 OF 2018 PARAG MUNGALE AND OTHERS )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2018 AJIT B. SHIRODKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.207 OF 2019 DAYANAND N. NAIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2019 SURENDRA MARUTI RANE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2019 VISHNU VISHWANATH KARMARKAR )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.514 OF 2019 GANPATI G. BHATTE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.664 OF 2019 SUNIL SHANTARAM KAMATH AND ANR. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.637 OF 2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2019 SURESH DATTA KAKDE )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT WITH avk 4/6 CRIMINAL APPEAL (STAMP) NO.157 OF 2019 SUCHETA SUNIL KARNIK AND ORS. )...APPELLANTS V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.580 OF 2019 KUMUDINI DATTATRAY SANT )...APPELLANT V/s. SUBHASH KARKHANIS AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.606 OF 2019 MITA VIJAY WALA )...APPELLANT V/s. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Ms.Siddhi Bhosale, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019. Mr.Dinesh Parmar i/b. DSR Legal, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No.157 of 2019. Mr.Subodh Desai a/w. Ms.Jayshri Surve, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2019. Mr.P.Pawar i/b. Mr.Rajput Karansingh, Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.1486 of 2018, 207/2019, 208/2019, 608/2019, 1523/2018, 1528/2018, 1536/2018, 1537/2018 and 763 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in all matters except in Criminal Appeal Nos.514 of 2019 and 580 of 2019. Mr.Sandeep Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2019 and for Respondent No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2019. Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 24th JULY 2019 P.C. : 1 Motion is moved for speaking to minutes of the order dated 18th July 2019. In the last line in paragraph six, inadvertently the words "applicantaccused/respondent no.3" are typed instead of the word "appellant". It be corrected accordingly. With this, motion stands disposed off accordingly. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTON CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.648 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s Satyabhama Ashok Jadhavar .. Respondent Ms.U.V.Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 30th August, 2010. P.C. Learned APP is directed to supply spare copy within two weeks from today, failing which appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. If the spare copy is supplied by the learned APP, office to issue notice to the Respondent, returnable within eight weeks thereafter. Stand over for eight weeks. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Vs. Satyabhama Ashok Jadhavar. ... Respondent Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for the Appellant/ State. None for the Respondent. CORAM : : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : : 25th October, 2010. P.C. 1 Office remark indicates that warrant of arrest is still unexecuted qua the Respondent. The appeal pertains to year 2006. Sufficient time has been given to the Appellant – State to serve the Respondent. By way of indulgence and last opportunity, we give ten weeks time to the Appellant to execute the warrant of arrest so as to comply with requirement of Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Failure to comply with the conditional order will result in dismissal of appeal without further reference to the Court. 2 Copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, Home Department for information and necessary action against the concerned officials. [ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.648 OF 2006 ...... ...... The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Versus Satyabhama Ashok Jadhavar ...Respondent Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for Appellant/State. None for Respondent. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- JANUARY 10, 2011. P.C. Wrongly on Board. On account of the conditional order dated 25th October, 2010, the Appeal is already dismissed for non-prosecution. Removed from the Board. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)