IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 94 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2207 of 2007 Sou. Sunita Mahendra Ranpise .. Applicant. vs. Ranjana Janardan Ghorpade & Ors .. Respondents. Shri Rupesh Bobade, advocate for the Applicant. Hamid Mulla h/f Shri V. B. Nighot for Respondents. Ms S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. DATED : 2nd April,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. The applicant has moved this application for early hearing of writ petition No. 2207 of 2007 filed by her against respondent no.1-original accused no.3. 3. Prior to coming to the conclusion - as to whether an application for early hearing of the pending criminal writ petition is to be allowed or not, certain attending circumstances as to lodging of the criminal case and events happened after such complaint before the Revisional Court are required to be narrated. 4. Present petitioner got married in the year 1995 with original accused no.1. After marriage they stayed together. However, after some period there used to be harassment and ill-treatment to the applicant at the hands of her husband (original accused no.1) with the active participation of his sister i.e. original accused nos. 3, who is respondent no.1 in criminal Writ Petition No.2207 of 2007. Allegedly, there were some sexual offences committed against the petitioner by original accused no.2, friend of her husband and also friend of present respondent no.1. Due to such matrimonial dispute and harassment some time on 31.5.2004 complainant left her matrimonial home and went to her parents along with her son and lodged a complaint in the month of May, 2005 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 374, 376 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband, his friends and sister (i.e.all three accused). Process was issued against all three accused. The matter was carried in the revision before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pune and said revision Application No.336 of 2005 was partly allowed dismissing the challenge to the issuance of process by accused Nos. 1 and 2 but allowing the revision as against accused no.3 (i.e. the present respondent No.1). 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional court on account of quashing the process as against original accused no.3 present respondent no.1, writ petition no. 2207 of 2007 came to be filed. As such, as the position stands today, only accused nos. 1 and 2 are to face the trial before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune for the offences mentioned above, whereas the revision filed by the petitioner against respondent no.1 - original accused no.3 is pending. 6. On hearing rival submissions, it is ascertained that the said matter before the J.M.F.C. Pune which is now already committed before the Sessions Court, Pune is likely to be taken up for hearing. It is the anxiety expressed on behalf of the petitioner original complainant that during pendency of the present criminal revision petition if the said matter is finally heard and disposed of and if thereafter present criminal revision is allowed and present respondent no.1 i.e. original accused no.3 is also directed to face the charges, then the situation would be difficult. As it would be multiplicity of the same evidence to be led. On the contrary, it is further submitted that if the present writ petition is expeditiously heard and the result is obtained and in the event it is directed that present respondent no.1 is to face the trial then it would be in the interest of justice and judicial harmony to have effective decision in the said pending sessions commit case. 7. Counter to above arguments, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 submitted that there are no special reasons as to why the pending criminal writ petition is to be expeditiously taken up. On careful consideration of the rival submissions in the opinion of this Court, it would be in the interest of justice and in order to have judicial harmony and not to have any further legal complications, it would be just and proper to have the decision in the criminal writ petition at the earliest and under these circumstances if such order is allowed, there may not be any prejudice caused to the respondent no.1 by such early hearing. 8. In the result, Application No. 94 of 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Criminal Writ Petition No. 2207 of 2007 to appear on board for early hearing before the appropriate Bench after two weeks. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)