Bare perusal of both the F.I.Rs. is enough to reach a
conclusion that the allegations in these F.I.Rs. arise out of different
settings and have different context. In Crime No. 42/05, there is no
mention whatsoever regarding taking out of procession on account of
election of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the posts of Sarpanch
and Up-Sarpanch, and whereas in Crime No. 40/05 there is specific
mention about the background and the reasons that sparked the
incident in that crime. This background was of election to the posts of
Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch and the procession taken out to celebrate the
same. The incident in Crime No. 42/05 has taken place in the house of
complainant Satish Warjurkar whereas the incident in Crime No. 40/05
has taken place on street in front of Bajrang Medical Stores. While F.I.R.
recorded in Crime No. 40/05 alleges motive for commission of the crime
by the accused persons therein, the F.I.R. recorded in Crime No. 42/05
alleges no motive for commission of the crime alleged against the
accused persons therein. Therefore, it is obvious that both the incidents
have different contextual settings and different reasons for their
occurrence and, as such, by no stretch of imagination, could they be said
to be arising out of one and the same transaction.
Of course, these observations are based upon prima facie
consideration of the material placed on record at this stage and would
not have any bearing when the cases are decided on their own merits.
But, for the purpose of deciding this petition, fact remains that the
incidents have no co-relation with each other and having different
background as well as fact situations, would not allow themselves to be
clubbed together for their being judicially adjudicated upon together and
simultaneously. In such a situation, question of coming of verdicts in
conflict with each other does not arise.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 401 OF 2014
Naresh @ Narendra Domaji Wankar,
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE , J .
DATED : 07.01. 2015 .
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2157
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought clubbing and
trying together of two criminal cases, being (i) Special Case No. 6 of 2008
(old case No. 12/07) and (ii) Regular Criminal Case No. 55 of 2007. The
first case is pending before the Special Court and arises out of Crime No.
40 of 2005 registered against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint
lodged by Sumanbai Rangari. The second case pending before Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class arises out of Crime No. 42 of 2005
registered on the basis of a complaint filed by petitioner no. 9 against
Avinash Manikrao Dhok and 13 other persons including Suman Rangari.
According to petitioners, the incidents involved in both the said crime
numbers arise out of the same transaction pertaining to taking out of
procession by Suman Rangari and Meerabai Gajbhiye in celebration of
they being elected as Sarpanch and Up-Sapanch of Gram Panchayat
Shankarpur in the year 2005 and, therefore, interest of justice would
require that both these cases were tried together and disposed of by a
common judgment. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application
before the Special Court, Warora in Special Case No. 6 of 2008 arising out
of Crime No. 40 of 2005 for calling for the record of Criminal Case No. 55
of 2007 pending before the Court of J.M.F.C., Chimur, and trying the case
together with the sessions triable case. The application was rejected by
the learned Special Judge by his order passed on 27.3.2014 holding that
both the incidents related to different transactions. Being aggrieved by
the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this
Court.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, both the
incidents involved in Crime Nos. 40 of 2005 and 42 of 2005 arise out of
the same transaction which was of taking out of the procession to
celebrate the election of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the posts
of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. He submits that though Crime No. 42 of
2005 (FIR) does not refer to the said procession, there are witnesses
who are referring to the procession and that apart both the incidents
have taken place at one and the same time and that some of the
witnesses as well as some accused persons are common in both the
crimes. Therefore, according to him, this was a fit case for clubbing
together of both the cases. He also submits that if both the cases are not
clubbed together and allowed to be tried by separate Courts, there is a
possibility of recording of conflicting verdict by two courts which will
cause prejudice to the valuable rights of both the parties to prove
themselves as innocents.
4. According to learned APP, the places of incidents were
different and even the allegations made in both the F.I.Rs. disclosed
prima facie registration of offence on different sets of facts. He submits
that even though time of both the incidents has been stated to be same
and even though some of the witnesses and some of the accused are
common, both the incidents are based upon different sets of facts and do
not have co-relation with each other and, therefore, no case has been
made out by the petitioners for clubbing together of both the aforesaid
cases. All these facts have been appropriately considered by the learned
Special Judge and, therefore, there is no room for any interference with
the said order passed by the learned Special Judge, so submits learned
APP.
5. Upon going through the contents of F.I.R. in Crime Nos.
40/05 and 42/05 and also the impugned order, I find that the learned APP
is right when he submits that the incidents narrated in the said F.I.Rs.
pertain to different transactions, and thus I find no merit in the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Bare perusal of both the F.I.Rs. is enough to reach a
conclusion that the allegations in these F.I.Rs. arise out of different
settings and have different context. In Crime No. 42/05, there is no
mention whatsoever regarding taking out of procession on account of
election of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the posts of Sarpanch
and Up-Sarpanch, and whereas in Crime No. 40/05 there is specific
mention about the background and the reasons that sparked the
incident in that crime. This background was of election to the posts of
Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch and the procession taken out to celebrate the
same. The incident in Crime No. 42/05 has taken place in the house of
complainant Satish Warjurkar whereas the incident in Crime No. 40/05
has taken place on street in front of Bajrang Medical Stores. While F.I.R.
recorded in Crime No. 40/05 alleges motive for commission of the crime
by the accused persons therein, the F.I.R. recorded in Crime No. 42/05
alleges no motive for commission of the crime alleged against the
accused persons therein. Therefore, it is obvious that both the incidents
have different contextual settings and different reasons for their
occurrence and, as such, by no stretch of imagination, could they be said
to be arising out of one and the same transaction.
7. Of course, these observations are based upon prima facie
consideration of the material placed on record at this stage and would
not have any bearing when the cases are decided on their own merits.
But, for the purpose of deciding this petition, fact remains that the
incidents have no co-relation with each other and having different
background as well as fact situations, would not allow themselves to be
clubbed together for their being judicially adjudicated upon together and
simultaneously. In such a situation, question of coming of verdicts in
conflict with each other does not arise.
8. In these circumstances, I find no fault nor any illegality in
the order passed by the learned Special Judge. If the two incidents are
entirely different in nature, commonness of some of the witnesses and
some of the accused persons would not be enough for allowing of an
application filed for clubbing together of the two cases. Writ petition is,
therefore, devoid any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
9. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Print Page
conclusion that the allegations in these F.I.Rs. arise out of different
settings and have different context. In Crime No. 42/05, there is no
mention whatsoever regarding taking out of procession on account of
election of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the posts of Sarpanch
and Up-Sarpanch, and whereas in Crime No. 40/05 there is specific
mention about the background and the reasons that sparked the
incident in that crime. This background was of election to the posts of
Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch and the procession taken out to celebrate the
same. The incident in Crime No. 42/05 has taken place in the house of
complainant Satish Warjurkar whereas the incident in Crime No. 40/05
has taken place on street in front of Bajrang Medical Stores. While F.I.R.
recorded in Crime No. 40/05 alleges motive for commission of the crime
by the accused persons therein, the F.I.R. recorded in Crime No. 42/05
alleges no motive for commission of the crime alleged against the
accused persons therein. Therefore, it is obvious that both the incidents
have different contextual settings and different reasons for their
occurrence and, as such, by no stretch of imagination, could they be said
to be arising out of one and the same transaction.
Of course, these observations are based upon prima facie
consideration of the material placed on record at this stage and would
not have any bearing when the cases are decided on their own merits.
But, for the purpose of deciding this petition, fact remains that the
incidents have no co-relation with each other and having different
background as well as fact situations, would not allow themselves to be
clubbed together for their being judicially adjudicated upon together and
simultaneously. In such a situation, question of coming of verdicts in
conflict with each other does not arise.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 401 OF 2014
Naresh @ Narendra Domaji Wankar,
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE , J .
DATED : 07.01. 2015 .
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2157
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought clubbing and
trying together of two criminal cases, being (i) Special Case No. 6 of 2008
(old case No. 12/07) and (ii) Regular Criminal Case No. 55 of 2007. The
first case is pending before the Special Court and arises out of Crime No.
40 of 2005 registered against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint
lodged by Sumanbai Rangari. The second case pending before Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class arises out of Crime No. 42 of 2005
registered on the basis of a complaint filed by petitioner no. 9 against
Avinash Manikrao Dhok and 13 other persons including Suman Rangari.
According to petitioners, the incidents involved in both the said crime
numbers arise out of the same transaction pertaining to taking out of
procession by Suman Rangari and Meerabai Gajbhiye in celebration of
they being elected as Sarpanch and Up-Sapanch of Gram Panchayat
Shankarpur in the year 2005 and, therefore, interest of justice would
require that both these cases were tried together and disposed of by a
common judgment. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application
before the Special Court, Warora in Special Case No. 6 of 2008 arising out
of Crime No. 40 of 2005 for calling for the record of Criminal Case No. 55
of 2007 pending before the Court of J.M.F.C., Chimur, and trying the case
together with the sessions triable case. The application was rejected by
the learned Special Judge by his order passed on 27.3.2014 holding that
both the incidents related to different transactions. Being aggrieved by
the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this
Court.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, both the
incidents involved in Crime Nos. 40 of 2005 and 42 of 2005 arise out of
the same transaction which was of taking out of the procession to
celebrate the election of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the posts
of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. He submits that though Crime No. 42 of
2005 (FIR) does not refer to the said procession, there are witnesses
who are referring to the procession and that apart both the incidents
have taken place at one and the same time and that some of the
witnesses as well as some accused persons are common in both the
crimes. Therefore, according to him, this was a fit case for clubbing
together of both the cases. He also submits that if both the cases are not
clubbed together and allowed to be tried by separate Courts, there is a
possibility of recording of conflicting verdict by two courts which will
cause prejudice to the valuable rights of both the parties to prove
themselves as innocents.
4. According to learned APP, the places of incidents were
different and even the allegations made in both the F.I.Rs. disclosed
prima facie registration of offence on different sets of facts. He submits
that even though time of both the incidents has been stated to be same
and even though some of the witnesses and some of the accused are
common, both the incidents are based upon different sets of facts and do
not have co-relation with each other and, therefore, no case has been
made out by the petitioners for clubbing together of both the aforesaid
cases. All these facts have been appropriately considered by the learned
Special Judge and, therefore, there is no room for any interference with
the said order passed by the learned Special Judge, so submits learned
APP.
5. Upon going through the contents of F.I.R. in Crime Nos.
40/05 and 42/05 and also the impugned order, I find that the learned APP
is right when he submits that the incidents narrated in the said F.I.Rs.
pertain to different transactions, and thus I find no merit in the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Bare perusal of both the F.I.Rs. is enough to reach a
conclusion that the allegations in these F.I.Rs. arise out of different
settings and have different context. In Crime No. 42/05, there is no
mention whatsoever regarding taking out of procession on account of
election of Suman Rangari and Meera Gajbhiye to the posts of Sarpanch
and Up-Sarpanch, and whereas in Crime No. 40/05 there is specific
mention about the background and the reasons that sparked the
incident in that crime. This background was of election to the posts of
Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch and the procession taken out to celebrate the
same. The incident in Crime No. 42/05 has taken place in the house of
complainant Satish Warjurkar whereas the incident in Crime No. 40/05
has taken place on street in front of Bajrang Medical Stores. While F.I.R.
recorded in Crime No. 40/05 alleges motive for commission of the crime
by the accused persons therein, the F.I.R. recorded in Crime No. 42/05
alleges no motive for commission of the crime alleged against the
accused persons therein. Therefore, it is obvious that both the incidents
have different contextual settings and different reasons for their
occurrence and, as such, by no stretch of imagination, could they be said
to be arising out of one and the same transaction.
7. Of course, these observations are based upon prima facie
consideration of the material placed on record at this stage and would
not have any bearing when the cases are decided on their own merits.
But, for the purpose of deciding this petition, fact remains that the
incidents have no co-relation with each other and having different
background as well as fact situations, would not allow themselves to be
clubbed together for their being judicially adjudicated upon together and
simultaneously. In such a situation, question of coming of verdicts in
conflict with each other does not arise.
8. In these circumstances, I find no fault nor any illegality in
the order passed by the learned Special Judge. If the two incidents are
entirely different in nature, commonness of some of the witnesses and
some of the accused persons would not be enough for allowing of an
application filed for clubbing together of the two cases. Writ petition is,
therefore, devoid any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
9. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No comments:
Post a Comment