CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mrs. Tarabai Raghunath Sankhe vs Smt. Sheetal Ravindra Sankhe and Another

Bombay High Court · Decided on 22 November 2012 · Citation: (2013) ALLMR(Cri) 32

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.C. Chavan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 323, 34, 406, 498A, 504
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1791 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 368 words

R.C. Chavan, J.—This petition questions the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Revision Application No. 7 of 2007 whereby he maintained the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court, Palghar, allowing application of Respondent No. 1 for return of property, on her executing a bond of Rs. 1,56,000/- with direction not to dispose of the said property till the final disposal of the case and to produce the property before Court as and when directed by trial Court. The trial of offence punishable u/s 498-A, 406, 323,504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian penal Code, (CR. No. 135 of 2008), is still pending. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate may get influenced by the observations in the order dated 7th March, 2009, passed below Exh. 1 in M.A. No. 199 of 2008 and M.A. 201 of 2008, by the learned J.M.F.C. as also in the Revision Application No. 7 of 2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, The apprehension can be set at rest by clarifying that at the end of the trial for offence punishable u/s 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian penal Code, (C.R. No. I-135 of 2008), the learned Magistrate would consider and decide the issue relating to return of property on the basis of evidence that may be before him.

2.

There was no need for the petitioner to rush to this Court since the order which is challenged is interlocutory in nature. The petition, therefore, can be disposed of by following order.

ORDER:

I) The property as described in the order passed by learned J.M.F.C. II Court, Palghar dated 7.3.2009, be returned on the same terms, but on executing a bond in the sum in commensurate with the value of the gold in the market as on the date of passing this order.

II) The learned Magistrate shall decide the main complaint as expeditiously as possible and decide the question of return of property without being influenced by the observations either of this Court, his Court or by Sessions Court while passing the orders impugned in this petition.

III) Rule discharged in above terms.