2008 ALL MR (Cri) 370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)
C.L. PANGARKAR, J.
Dr. Mahesh S/O. Tulshiram Bhoware & Ors.Vs.State Of Maharashtra
Criminal Application No.2713 of 2007
12th October, 2007
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. R. P. JOSHI
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Y. B. MANDPE
Criminal P.C. (1973). S.178 - Trial of criminal case - Two incidents - Both incidents occurred at different times and in different places - No need to try both the cases simultaneously. (Paras 6)
One Smt. Sheela Manke lodged a report with the police alleging that while she was going home on 10-10-2004 at 8.15 p.m., the present applicants accosted her and questioned her as to why she was preventing Seema from attending the dispensary. It is alleged that she was assaulted by the applicants, as a result she received injuries. She lodged the report with the police.
4. It is alleged that mob of the people came to the present applicants/accused when all the applicants were at home. It is alleged that stones were pelted at the house of the applicants. All window panes were broken even one glass of the car was also broken by the people who pelted stones on the house of the applicants. This incident occurred at 8.30 p.m. The applicants, therefore, lodged the report with the police. Offence has been registered. Upon both the offences, charge-sheet have been filed in the court and the present applicants and the accused named on the basis of the report submitted by the present applicants, are also facing trial before the magistrate. The accused are facing trial in R.C.C. No.66 of 2005 while other parties are facing trial in Reg. Criminal Case No.945 of 2004. It is alleged that the applicants had requested the learned magistrate to take R.C.C. No.66 of 2005 early for hearing but the learned magistrate orally said that there he would be trying both the cases simultaneously since they arise out of the same incident. As far as the case against the applicants is concerned, is ripe of hearing and fixed for evidence and two witnesses have already been examined, while in other case even the report under Section 202 of Cr.P.Code has not been received by the magistrate. Since the magistrate has expressed that both the cases would be tried simultaneously, the applicants had moved the learned District Judge for direction to the magistrate that at least Reg. Criminal Case No.66 of 2005 be separately taken up and completed early or transferred. Instead of doing so, the learned Sessions Judge directed that both the cases be decided expeditiously and also the request for transfer, as was made, as magistrate had expressed that she has no time for taking up the case for early hearing, the learned Sessions Judge refused to transfer the cases and directed expeditious hearing of the criminal cases. Being aggrieved by that, this application has been preferred.
6. It is contended by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, that there is no need to try both the cases together because they do not arise out of the same incident. He brought to my notice both the F.I.Rs. Both the F.I.Rs. Clearly go to show that the first incident had taken place at 8.15 p.m. on the road while second incident had taken place at the house of the applicants at 8.30 p.m.. It is, therefore, apparent that place of occurrence in both the incidents is different and they had taken place at different times. Obviously, there is therefore, no need to try both the cases simultaneously. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has no objection even if criminal case against the present applicants is tried separately and expeditiously. In view of this, the petition is allowed. It is directed the criminal case R.C.C. No.66 of 2005 be heard separately and expeditiously and may be decided as far as possible within period of two months.
Similarly, the magistrate should also try to decide other criminal case No.945 of 2004 expeditiously as directed by the learned Sessions Judge.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.