All Civil Miscellaneous Application

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2015 Mr. Amit Dipak Nachankar ....Appellant V/S Mrs. Rakhee Amit Nachankar ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FCA NO. 140 OF 2017 In FAMILY COURT APPEAL 118 OF 2015 Smt.rakhee Amit Nachankar Alias Rakhee Shrikrishna Moharir ....Applicant V/S Shri.amit Deepak Nachankar ....Respondent Ms Shaila Mukesh Joshi For Appellant Shri Vaibhav Prakash Patankar For Respondent For Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT. & SMT. S.S. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 3rd July, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 10/07/2017. To be listed under caption "For Settlement/Filing Consent Terms". ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2015 Mr. Amit Dipak Nachankar ....Appellant V/S Mrs. Rakhee Amit Nachankar ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FCA NO. 140 OF 2017 In FAMILY COURT APPEAL 118 OF 2015 Smt.rakhee Amit Nachankar Alias Rakhee Shrikrishna Moharir ....Applicant V/S Shri.amit Deepak Nachankar ....Respondent Ms Shaila Mukesh Joshi For Appellant Shri Vaibhav Prakash Patankar For Respondent For Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT. & SMT. S.S. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 10th July, 2017 P.C. : By consent Stand over to 14/08/2017 with liberty to move preceipe if occasion so arises. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: (903)-CAM-140-17.doc*.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.140 OF 2017 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.118 OF 2015 Smt. Rakhee Amit Nachankar alias Rakhee Shrikrishna Moharir Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Appellant Respondent Shri. S. C. Wakankar i/by Shri. Vaibhav P. Patankar for the Applicant/ Respondent. Ms. Shaila M. Joshi for the Appellant/Respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ DATE : 19th JULY, 2017 P.C. The above Civil Application has been filed seeking withdrawal of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/ deposited in this Court by the original Appellant/husband. The Learned Counsel appearing for the original Appellant/husband has no objection to the said withdrawal. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. [SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2012 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders Mr.Sudhir Sakpal h/f.Mr.S.M.Suryawanshi for the Applicant. Ms.V.R.Bhosale, APP for the State/R2. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 2nd March, 2012. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for Respondent No.2/State. Issue notice to Respondent No.1, returnable after four weeks. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 14: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2012 M/s. Lalit Construction .Applicant V/s. Rakesh Roshan & anr. .Respondents None for the Applicant Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 12TH JUNE, 2012 P.C. . None for the applicant even on second call. Criminal Application is dismissed for want of prosecution. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2853 OF 2010 Suresh Sitaram Dolas ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. &..Respondents ----- Ms.A.Ashtivhar i/b. Mr.R. Sathyanarayanan for Applicant Mrs.R.V. Newton -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1ST JULY, 2010 P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that after the complaint was dismissed by the Learned Magistrate by his order dated 6.11.2006, the Learned Magistrate has thereafter passed a second order in the said complaint referring the matter for enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. to the Byculla Police Station. It is submitted that the complaint having been dismissed, a subsequent order in the same complaint could not have been passed by the Learned Magistrate. In my view, prima facie case is made out for grant of ad-interim relief. Issue notice to the Respondent No.2, returnable after four weeks. In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). (V.M. KANADE J.)

Order - Status 20: 1 Cri-A-2853-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2853 OF 2010 Suresh Sitaram Dolas ... Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.Sathyanarayanan, Advocate, for the applicant Ms. M.R.Tidke,Advocate for the respondent No.1 - State. Mr. R.A.Shelke, i/b. Shri Gautam Kanchanpurkar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 29th April, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused both the orders passed by the Magistrate. By first order dated 6.11.2006, he had rejected the complaint as premature with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint as and when cause of action arose. However, by second order dated 17.2.2007, he allowed the same old complaint to be revived and issued the process. The second order is challenged in the present application. After some discussion, with consent of the learned Counsel, the order dated 17.2.2007 is hereby set aside with liberty to the respondent No.2 Mhi 2 Cri-A-2853-10.sxw complainant to file fresh complaint, if he so desires. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.2346 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Office : Notes,Office Court or Judge's Order. Memorandum : of Coram apperance,Court's : Orders: & Directions and: Registrar's Order. : -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr Murtuza Nazmi, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 13TH SEPT, 2007. 1.Heard. 2.By consent of parties, the amount of bail ordered earlier is reduced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 3.To that extent order of bail is modified. (V.C.DAGA,J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.300 OF 2017 Devila K. Shah … Applicant V/s. Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2017 Manashi K. Shah … Applicant V/s. Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. … Respondents Mr. P.V. Dubey a/w. Bindu Gupta for the Applicant. Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28th MARCH 2018 P.C.: Issue notice to Respondent No.1, returnable after four weeks. In addition to Court notice, the applicant is permitted to serve Respondent No.1 by way of private notice and to file an affidavit of service after Respondent No.1 is duly served. Stand over to 25.04.2018. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 9: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2017 Mansi K.Shah ..Applicant Vs Faaiz Anwar Qureshi & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Princekumar Dubey for applicant. Mr. Devang Lakhotia i/b Juris Consillis for respondent No.1. Mr. V.V. Gangurde, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 25th APRIL 2018. P.C.: 1] This is an application for condonation of delay of 69 days in filing the application for leave to file appeal. 2] Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 3] The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the application. However, for the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.S.GADKARI, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2008 Dr. Gyanendra S.N. Singh .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.K.S. Patil for the applicant. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 30TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with the offence registered with Jogeshwari Police Station, Mumbai under C.R. No.196/2007 punishable under section 498-A, 323, 506, 504, 379, 377 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier application made by the applicant to the Sessions Court (Application No.24/2008) for bail has been rejected by an order dated 18th January 2008. The complainant is the wife of Arvind Pawar. The applicant is a friend of Arvind Pawar. In the FIR lodged by the complainant on 5th November 2007, she alleged that the complainant and her husband lived together for 5-6 months after the marriage. Thereafter there were quarrels between them. Hence she left the house. Thereafter her husband has been harassing her and on 1st October 2007 Arvind along with his three friends including the present applicant came to her house, assaulted her and took away gold mangalsutra weighing about 1 tola and 2 gold bangles weighing about 2 1/2 tolas. The complainant further alleges that in the past her husband had unnatural intercourse with her though she had not informed this to anyone. There is no allegation that the applicant is in any way concerned with the act of unnatural intercourse allegedly committed by the husband. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in assuming that the present applicant is also a party to the unnatural offence punishable under section 379 of the I.P.C. The only allegation against the applicant is that he accompanied the husband of the complainant on 1st October 2007 when she was allegedly robbed of one gold mangalsutra and 2 gold bangles. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the incident. There is a delay of more than a month in lodging the FIR after the alleged robbing. In the circumstances, the applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the offence mentioned above, he shall be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the condition that the applicant shall not make any contact with the complainant and shall not in any way make any inducement or threat to any of the prosecution witnesses and shall attend the concerned police station as and when summoned by the police for the purpose of interrogation/ investigation. This order shall come to an end after the charge sheet is filed whereupon the applicant, if he so desires, may apply for regular bail before the regular court. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2008 Shri Abdul Rahim Tantray. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. S.V.Kotwal i/b. S.S.Bhandary for the applicant. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 2nd May 2008. P.C.: ---- . Heard. Perused record. The relaxation sought to be prayed by the applicant was already granted under order dated 1st February, 2008. The applicant has availed the benefit of that order. There cannot be successive relaxation in every alternate month. Application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3719 OF 2003 IN CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 360 OF 2003 Mr. Rajesh Kisanchand Agarwal. ... Applicant. V/s. Vinay Ramchandra Kulkarni and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.R. Agarkar for the Applicant. Ms. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the State. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. OCTOBER 08, 2014. P.C. :- Learned Counsel for the Applicant states that Criminal Revision Application No.360 of 2003 has been disposed of and consequently, the present Application is rendered infructuous. Accordingly, Criminal Application No.3719 of 2003 is dismissed as infructuous. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2774 OF 2006 Samar Khadas & ors ..Petitioners V/s. The Poisar-Kandivli Maharashtra State Police Employee's CHS Ltd & ors .Respondents Mr.S.R.Chitnis, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Vinayak Shetye i.b Ms.P.Kamani for the Petitioners. Mr.Vishwajeet Kapse for Respondentos. 1 to 3. Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 28.11.2007 PC The respondent nos. 1 to 3 have filed private criminal complaint against the present petitioners alleging an offence punishable under sections 500, 501 and 502 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are all employees working with "Loksatta" which is run by the Indian Express group of newspapers which is applicant no.4. It appears that at the behest of the respondent no.4 who has now expired some articles were published in Loksatta. The present respondent nos. 1 to 3 thought that the said articles were defamatory and hence a criminal complaint came to be filed. Therefore, Criminal Case No. 632//SS/2005 came to be filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. The Magistrate has issued process in the said complaint. In the meanwhile, the present respondent no. 4 who was also accused no.1 in the complaint has expired. The complainant and the remaining accused have now decided to settle their dispute and compound the offences. Accordingly, minutes of order dated 28th November, 2007 signed by the both the advocates as well as by the parties is tendered across the bar today and the same is marked X for identification. The Application as well as the complaint is disposed of in terms of the minutes of order. (R.S.Mohite,J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 229 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2005 Chetan Ashokkumar Patil . ......Applicants versus State of Maharashtra & ors....... Respondant. None for the Applicant Mrs. A.S. Pai APP for State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED: 14th NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C.: Place the matter before the Bench presided over by B.H. Marlapalle & J.H. Bhatia, JJ. since it is a matter of recalling of the order passed by the same Bench. (R.V. MORE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE CRIMINAL HIGH APPELLATE CO LATE APPLIC COURT APPLICATION OF NO. JUDICATURE 229 AT OF BOMBAY JURISDICTION 2008 CRI CRIMINAL WRIT [ IN PETITION ON NO. 2356 OF 2005 Chetan Ashokkumar Patil Applicant Vs. S. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents None Mr. Mr. A.S. for Gadkari, M.K. Kocharekar APP the for for respondent respondent applicant. no.1-State. no.2. CORAM: B.H. J.H. MARLAPALLE BHATIA, & JJ. Date : : April 13, 2009. P.C.: Ν None for the applicant. e applica ant. . Mr. Gadkari the learned APP states that charge-sheet heet has been filed on 10/12/2003 bearing No. 127 of 2003 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli. He seek s time to f file affida Sangli. He seeks time to file affidavit of the I.O. I.O. or his successor. Time granted. . Stand over for one week. (J.H. Bhatia,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH APPELLATE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY JURISDICTION CRIMINAL L Al APPLICATION IN NO. 229 OF 2008 ( CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION N N NO. 2356 OF 2005 Chetan Ashokkumar Patil Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. d Anr. Respondents Mr. Mr. Umesh A.S. Gadkari, Mankapure for for respondent nt applicant. no.1-State. CORAM: J.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE BHATIA, Date : April 20, 2009. P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Mankapure the learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Gadkari, the learned Λ DD has n aced be fore us the affidavit of Shri Hamid APP, has placed before us the affidavit of Shri Hamid Ismail Shaikh, Police Head Constable, who was the I.O. in C.R. No. 192 of 2003 registered with the Vishrambag Police Station at Sangli. 2. 2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2356 of 2005 was disposed off with the observations that the petitioner's remedy was before the Sessions ns Court to challenge the order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. However, it has been pointed out in this application that the Advocate, who appeared before us (Shri Sandeep Kume) was not familiar with the facts of the case and had erroneously made the statement when the petition was called out for hearing. The court proceeded on the basis that it was a private complaint registered as S.C.C. No. 2054 of 2003. This application states that an F.I.R. was lodged with the Police Station and the complaint is, therefore, at the instance of the State. The record supports these contentions and we, therefore, heard Mr. Mankapure afresh on the merits of Writ Petition No. 2356 of 2005. 3.The affidavit filed by the I.O. today states that on completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC came to be filed on 10/12/2003 i.e. much before the petition was filed before us. This factum of filing of the charge-sheet earlier has not reflected in the petition memo and the petitioner prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. Once the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court on investigation by the police, the trial court will have to proceed with the complaint on its own merits and a petition to quash :2: the F.I.R. need not be entertained. Mr. Mankapure, therefore, sought leave to withdraw the application so as to approach the trial court with appropriate application. 4.Hence, leave granted and the application is disposed as withdrawn with liberty as is available in law. (J.H. Bhatia,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)