CASE DISPOSED
Uncontested--Rejected
Decision Date: 05th December 2019
TrustJury record updated 25 Sept 2026
Case Overview
- Registration Number
- 139/2018
- Registration Date
- 18 Jun 2018
Advocates
0No advocate information is available in this record.
Parties
2Petitioner
Respondent
Acts & Sections
1Indian Penal Code · Sec 120B · 406 · 415 · 420 · 461 · 465 · 467
Case History / Proceedings
Case History
Date: 16-07-2018 Business: Ld MM on training charge with 12th court, hence board discharged. Next Purpose: CASES AT 2 45 PM Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2018 Date: 05-10-2018 Business: Complainant absent, his Advocate absent. Next Purpose: CASES AT 2 45 PM Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2019 Date: 13-03-2019 Business: Complainant absent, his Advocate absent. Next Purpose: CASES AT 2 45 PM Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2019 Date: 20-09-2019 Business: Complainant present with his Advocate. Partly heard. Court busy in other work. Next Purpose: CASES AT 2 45 PM Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2019 Date: 20-11-2019 Business: Complainant and his Advocate present. court busy in other work. adj to Next Purpose: CASES AT 2 45 PM Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2019 Date: 29-11-2019 Business: Complainant advocate present. court busy in other work. adj to Next Purpose: CASES AT 2 45 PM Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2019 Date: 04-12-2019 Business: Complainant and his Advocate absent when called. adj to Next Purpose: CASES AT 2 45 PM Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2019 Date: 05-12-2019 Business: Complainant and his Advocate absent. Order passed below Exh.1. Nature Of Disposal: Rejected Disposal Date: 05-12-2019
Additional Case Details
Additional Case Details
Filing Number: 5288/2018 Filing Date: 18-06-2018 First Hearing Date: 16th July 2018 Decision Date: 05th December 2019 Court Number And Judge: 71-
Orders
2Final Order 205 Dec 2019
05 Dec 2019
Order Details: Order Below EX 1 Pdf Text: C.C.NO. 139/SW/2018 Sandeep Vs. Sanaz ORDER BELOW EXH.01 1. Heard the applicant and perused the documents. 2. The applicant has filed this application with lots of repetition which made him lose track of chronology of events. At times, it appears that the applicant has forgot whether he is filing a criminal application or matrimonial proceeding. Be it so, it is apparent from the contents of the opening paragraph of the application itself that the passport of the respondent has been impounded by the passport authorities and Santacruz police station has been directed to initiate action. Further, the contents of the application invite inference of active participation of the applicant in alleged act. This could be reason for inaction of the applicant for the several years. Again, rest of the allegations have not arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. The application has no purpose in the situation which is already accomplished. So also neither the affidavit is properly sworn nor the vakalatnama is signed by the advocate of the applicant. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the application is dismissed. Sd/ Place : Mumbai. Metropolitan Magistrate, Date : 05.12.2019. 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai. -- 1 of 1 --
Final Order 105 Dec 2019
05 Dec 2019
Order Details: Order Below EX 1 Pdf Text: C.C.NO. 139/SW/2018 Sandeep Vs. Sanaz ORDER BELOW EXH.01 1. Heard the applicant and perused the documents. 2. The applicant has filed this application with lots of repetition which made him lose track of chronology of events. At times, it appears that the applicant has forgot whether he is filing a criminal application or matrimonial proceeding. Be it so, it is apparent from the contents of the opening paragraph of the application itself that the passport of the respondent has been impounded by the passport authorities and Santacruz police station has been directed to initiate action. Further, the contents of the application invite inference of active participation of the applicant in alleged act. This could be reason for inaction of the applicant for the several years. Again, rest of the allegations have not arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. The application has no purpose in the situation which is already accomplished. So also neither the affidavit is properly sworn nor the vakalatnama is signed by the advocate of the applicant. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the application is dismissed. Sd/ Place : Mumbai. Metropolitan Magistrate, Date : 05.12.2019. 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai. -- 1 of 1 --
TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.