- 1 - patelgrpoup IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1617 OF 2009 Smt.Yashoda Sudhakar Vaity .. Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra & ors.. Respondents with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1623 OF 2009 Smt Jyoti Narayan Bhoir .. Petitioner vs State of Maharashtra & anr ..Respondents with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1624 OF 2009 Pravin Kanji Chjawda .. Petitioner vs State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1621 OF 2009 Sanjay Damji Choutaliya .. Petitioner vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondents with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1618 OF 2009 Singh Devendra Ramsingh ..Petitioner vs State of Maharashtra & anr .. Respondents with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1619 OF 2009 Kantilal Hinji Rathod ..Petitioner vs State of Maharashtra ..Respondents with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1620 OF 2009 Shri Mohan Genu Dhabholkar .. Petitioner - 2 - patelgrpoup vs State of Maharashtra & anr.. Respondents with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2009 Shri Hareshwar Damodar Bhoir .. Petitioner vs State of Maharashtra & anr .. Respondents Mr.Pravin Patel for Petitioner Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for Respondent-State Ms.Seena Rawade for BMC Respondent no.2 CORAM: N.D.DESHPANDE, J DATE: 21st February,2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. These are group of petitions arising out of criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of complainant-BMC on the basis of the notices issued under section 354, 351 of the BMC Act. Petitioners are accused before - 3 - patelgrpoup the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd Court, Shindewadi, Dadar, Mumbai in C.C.No.2797/ME/2000. The said proceedings are almost on the verge of completion and petitioner s statement as accused are being recorded. Petitioner stated their innocence in the matter and therefore, blamed the erstwhile owner of the premises one Pagare and asked for joining him as a necessary party as accused under section 319 of Cr.P.C., not only before the trial court but, also before Sessions Court in Revision Application/Appeal. 2. Prima facie, it is seen that there is no sanction or permission to the impugned construction which is in the Corporation limits of BMC. Therefore, said construction is even liable for demolition, for necessary action should also include penal action against everyone who is found guilty and - 4 - patelgrpoup upon failure to produce necessary documentary proof/ or evidence. 3. Certain questions were also raised in the petition which are questions of facts and cannot be entertained by this court in this petition. In that view of the matter, this group of petitions deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. However, with no costs. Needless to state that petitioners shall co-operate with the trial court and appear on the dates fixed before trial court. N.D.Deshpande, J - 5 - patelgrpoup