1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1113/2010 ( Shamsunder Ratanlalji Sharma .vs. Vishnu Chiranjivlal Pipalwa ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. R.R. Vyas, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 1. Heard. 2. By the present application the accused in Criminal Case No. 1326 of 2005 of the Court of JMFC Court No.4, Nagpur had mainly prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2007 preferred by him against the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the trial Court against him in said criminal case. By the said order, the prayer of the applicant/accused for keeping in abeyance the said appeal till the decision in Criminal Case No. 782 of 1999 instituted by him against respondent and pending in the Court of JMFC Court No.4, Nagpur was rejected by the appellate Court. 2 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that after institution of a false Summary Criminal Case No. 1326 of 2005 against him, he has also initiated Criminal Case No. 782 of 1999 against the respondent and one another relating to the true transaction occurred in between himself and respondent and said other person. The learned counsel urged that subject matter of both the said cases was one and the same or at least the same were distinctly co-related. It was urged that having regard to the same, the trial Court ought to have tried both the said cases together but instead of doing so, the trial Court proceeded with Summary Criminal case No.1326/2005 registered against the applicant and the said proceeding culminated into his conviction. The applicant thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal No. 60/2007 against the said judgment and order of conviction. The applicant therein preferred the application dated 19.6.2010 for bringing the relevant facets to the notice of the appellate Court and prayed the appellate Court for keeping the proceedings of the said appeal in abeyance until disposal of Criminal Case No. 782 of 1999 initiated by him against the respondent and said another accused person. The learned counsel contended that the said application preferred by the applicant was rejected by the appellate Court on the count of the appellate Court being not vested with inherent powers and hence the applicant has approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the subject matter of both the said cases 3 being same, both the said cases ought to have been tried and decided together or at least simultaneously by the trial Court. It was urged that such a course being not adopted by the trial Court, the same has resulted in one of the cases resulting into conviction of applicant without taking into consideration the contentions raised by him before the trial Court in the case preferred by him and the one which has remained pending. The learned counsel thus urged that hence it was necessary for the appellate Court to allow his application and keep the proceeding of an appeal instituted by him in abeyance until the case filed by him was decided by the trial Court. It was urged that considering the reason for which application of applicant was rejected by the trial Court i.e. the lack of inherent powers, it will be proper to exercise such a power and to allow such prayer made by him in present application. 5. The aforesaid submissions were countered by the learned counsel for the respondent by urging that even glance at the nature of cases instituted reveals that the subject matter involved in both the cases is altogether different. He urged that both the cases were initially instituted in different Courts and even lateron prayer for trying same together and/or simultaneously was never made before the trial Court. He urged that alleged contention of the applicant being never brought to the notice of trial Court, no blame can be found with the trial Court in deciding summary case initiated upon the complaint lodged by the respondent prior to deciding a case instituted upon the complaint filed by 4 the applicant. He urged that scope of appeal preferred by the applicant being limited to examine the correctness and legality of judgment and order of conviction recorded therein, the application made by the applicant in the said appeal was beyond the scope of the said appeal and as such the same was rightly rejected by the appellate Court. He further urged that the said application preferred by the applicant as well as the present application preferred is not made for any bona fide purpose and is made only for the purpose of causing delay in respondent receiving the fruits of the proceedings taken by him for enforcing his right against the applicant. 6. Now carefully considering the nature of application preferred by the applicant, there appears substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the same was out of scope of appeal preferred by the applicant. Having regard to the same and so also having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent, which are not refuted in any manner by the learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant had not at all taken any steps before the trial Court for pointing out that subject matter of both the cases was one and the same and/or co-related, it is difficult to find any merits either in the application made before the appellate Court or in the present application. It is settled legal position that inherent powers of this Court expressly saved by the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be sparingly exercised for serving the three contingencies specified 5 in the said section. Considering the case of the applicant, it is difficult to find that his case or his application would fall within the said parameters. Such a conclusion is inevitable as no grievance is made before this Court that the applicant has not received due opportunity in defending himself in a summary case tried against him. The same is the case regarding prosecuting the case against the respondent and another. 7. Having regard to all aforesaid, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the order passed by appellate Court has resulted in abuse of process of law and/or any occasion has arisen for exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing order dated 19.6.2010 or even otherwise. 8. In view of the same, the application preferred by non-diligent applicant is wholly devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE halwai