IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 v. Mrs. Sudha Sam Kukde, Age:- about 50 yrs
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Applicant is the original complainant. She is aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing her complaint for want of prosecution. The Trial Court has observed that after plea of the accused was recorded, the complainant remained absent and did not attend…
- Para 66. It is no doubt true and it is a settled position in law that the parties to the case cannot question the record maintained by the Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there was some misunderstanding on the part of…
Judgment
Mr. Anil V. Dhavale for Respondent No.1. Mr. Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 15th October, 2007 P.C.:
I had suggested that the parties should try to settle the case. However, it appears that differences between parties cannot be resolved. 2
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1.
Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith.
Applicant is the original complainant. She is aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing her complaint for want of prosecution. The Trial Court has observed that after plea of the accused was recorded, the complainant remained absent and did not attend the court on the said date and, therefore, Trial Court was constrained to dismiss the complaint. An affidavit has been filed by the advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant in which he has stated that after a plea of the accused was recorded, the case was adjourned and, accordingly, he had informed the complainant.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that the record of the Trial Court cannot be questioned by the complainant or his advocate.
It is no doubt true and it is a settled position in law that the parties to the case cannot question the record maintained by the Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there was some misunderstanding on the part of the complainant and, therefore, she did not remain present. Discretion which is vested in Court under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised in a proper manner. In my view, Trial Court ought to have given one more opportunity to the complainant to remain present. Under these 3 circumstances, impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded to the Trial Court. Trial Court shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of six months.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 256.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Oct 2007. The bench was V M KANADE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.