1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 450 of 2009 (APPP) In Criminal Application No. 3117 of 2009 ( Shrikisan Pandurang Mavaskar ..vs.. Ranjana Shrikisan Mavaskar and another ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the non-applicant No.1, Mr. V.A. Thakare, APP for the non-applicant No.2. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 8 th DECEMBER, 2009 1. This application is filed with prayer to stay the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 27-12-2007 passed by the J.M.F.C., Malegaon in Misc. Criminal Application No.35/2004 and order dated 4-5-2009 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge at Akola, Division at Washim and also to the execution proceedings in Misc. Criminal Case No.2/2008, pending before the J.M.F.C., Malegaon. 2. On perusal of the contents of the application in paragraph 3, it is stated that the respondent No.1 cannot be a legally wedded wife of the present applicant as she was already wedded with one Gangadhar Tate and her marriage is still in existence. It is further stated in paragraph 4 of the application that, the 2 respondent No.1 was not validly divorced from Gangadhar. Therefore, in paragraph 5 it is prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below required to be stayed with stay to the execution proceedings. 3. On perusal of the order dated 9th September, 2009 passed by this Court, it appears that the prayer for stay to the impugned order is not entertained and said prayer is rejected. This Court by order dated 9th September, 2009 granted Rule and declined to stay the impugned order. The points which are raised in the stay application are not new points raised by the applicant, even those points were available to the applicant when order dated 9th September, 2009 is passed by this Court. The contentions which are raised in the application are necessarily on the merits of the matter and therefore, this Court has already granted rule in the main application. It would not be out of place to mention that there are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and this Court should be slow in interfering the concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the Court below. Therefore, no case is made out. Hence, application for stay is rejected. JUDGE adgokar