1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1826 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 481 OF 2010 *** *** 1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. R. N. Dhorde, instructed by learned counsel Mr. S. B. Jadhav, who appears for the Applicants. This criminal application is filed by four persons claiming them to be interveners. Respondent Nos.1 is the State, Respondent No. 2 is the Superintendent of Police, District Jalna. Respondent No.3 is Shaikh Yunus S/o Shaikh Noor. Respondent No.4 is Nilkanth S/o Jankiram Surange. In this criminal application, prayer is sought by the Applicants – interveners, to allow them to intervene in Criminal Writ Petition No.481 of 2010 and/ or to direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 / original writ petitioners, to add the present Applicants as party respondents to the above mentioned criminal writ petition. This application appears to have been filed on 5th May, 2010. Indisputably, in criminal writ petition No.481 of 2010 Respondent Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Mr. Shaikh Yunus and Mr. Nilkanth Surange are the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. 2. By our order passed on 6th May, 2010 in 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. this criminal application No.1826 of 2010 the applicants/ interveners were directed to serve the copy of this application to learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State and its authorities. It was further directed by us that this application i.e. Criminal Application No.1826 of 2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No.l 481 of 2010 to be considered tomorrow i.e. on 7th May, 2010. With the assistance of learned counsel present before the Court, we have seen the order passed by this Court on 7th May, 2010. This order is passed in Criminal Writ Petition NO.481 of 2010 with Criminal Application NO.1826 of 2010 (application for intervention). Para 6 of this order dated 7th May, 2010 is material. In this para 6, we have granted liberty in favour of the original petitioners in writ petition NO.481 of 2010 to file appropriate criminal application to seek amendment if any in original writ petition. This order was passed noticing oral request by learned counsel Mr. Tope for the Petitioners. In this order itself, it was further directed by us that the petitioners shall file an appropriate criminal application seeking leave to amend. Copy of 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the said amendment application, was further directed to be served only on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the present. It was further directed by us, if such an application is filed, said application to be tagged with the writ petition, on the adjourned date. 3. On the background of the order passed by this Court on 7th May, 2010, criminal application seeking amendment came to be filed. As we have noticed earlier, criminal Application NO.1826 of 2010 (application for intervention) was to be heard along with the writ petition, still it is pending with this writ petition. 4. Criminal Writ Petition NO.481 of 2010 was listed before this Court from time to time. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, present before the Court, except Advocate for the interveners and passed orders. We are not now reiterating all those orders, passed by us in Criminal Writ Petition No.481 of 2010. At the cost of repetition, suffice to note that the intervention application is pending as of today. Today we have heard learned counsel Mr. R. N. Dhorde for the Applicants/ interveners, Advocate Mr. V. D. Salunke for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (original petitioners 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. in criminal writ petition No.481 of 2010) and learned Government Pleader Mr. Khandare for the State and its authorities. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel points out para No.2 of his reply affidavit. We have seen this reply affidavit filed on behalf of the original petitioners, to this application for intervention. 5. Main proceeding before this Court is Criminal Writ Petition No.481 of 2010. The criminal Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners therein on 29th April, 2010. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is evident from the cause title of the writ petition itself. Procedure for hearing of the writ petitions under Article 226, 227 or 226 read with 227 of the Constitution is not prescribed under the Constitution of India. Broadly speaking, there are two branches of law. First one is Civil Branch and the other one is Criminal Branch of law. Procedure for consideration of the proceedings arising out of civil branch of law is laid down under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proceedings which are arising out of criminal Legislations, so far as procedure is concerned, are governed by the Code of 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Criminal Procedure. 6. We have noticed Order 1 Rule 8-A and Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have considered the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 can adopt a procedure which can be held to be not only reasonable but also expeditious. Procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure can be considered to be guide. For this proposition, useful reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of "Puran Singh and others V/s State of Punjab and others" reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 1092. 7. Criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 6 (A). Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to furnish copy of the petition, as it stands today, to learned counsel appearing for the Applicants. Criminal Application accordingly is allowed and disposed of. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:28/06/2010. ans/1826