1 wp-2141-2142-2143-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2141 OF 2011 Kurush N. Gandhi ...Petitioner Versus Cyrus Keki Balsara & ors. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2142 OF 2011 Kurush N. Gandhi ...Petitioner Versus Minoo Neville Gandhi and anr. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2143 OF 2011 Kurush N. Gandhi & anr. ...Petitioners Versus Advocate Manjula Rao and anr. ...Respondents 2 wp-2141-2142-2143-2011 Mr.K.N.Gandhi, petitioner in person in all the petitions. Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP for State in W.P.Nos.2141 and 2143 of 2011. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for State in W.P.No.2142 of 2011. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. August 2, 2011. P.C. 1. The first two petitions have been filed by the husband and the third petition appears to be filed by the husband and wife. Yesterday we had five petitions filed by the wife on board and three of them have been adjourned at her request and the remaining two i.e. Criminal Writ Petition Nos.2115 and 2117 of 2011 came to be disposed off with liberty to apply to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the pending cases. The prayers made in these petitions are almost the same as are made in the petitions filed by the wife and the prayers are (a) for directions to expedite cases pending before the trial Court and (b) for restraining the accused in causing recurring assaults. In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the relief for restraining the accused in causing recurring assaults cannot be entertained. So far as directions to expedite 3 wp-2141-2142-2143-2011 cases is concerned, the petitioner will have to, at the first instance, apply to the very same Court and if aggrieved by any order on such application, he may move the higher forum. 2. Hence these petitions are also dismissed with liberty to apply to the lower Court for expeditious hearing. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)