34.Cr.Appln.154-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Application No. 154 / 2021

Vijay Ashok Dalvi and Anr.

.. Applicants

Versus.

The State of Maharashtra

.. Respondent

****

Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate for the Applicants.

Mr. A.D. Khamkhedkar, APP for State.

Mr. Sangram Bagal, P.S.I., Vakola Police Station.

****

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : 07^th SEPTEMBER,2021.

P.C. : -

Heard.

1.

Applicants have invoke the inherent jurisdiction

of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 to challenge “proclamation”

dated 31^st December, 2015 and standing non-bailable

warrants dated 13^th October, 2020, issued against

them in case no. 352/PW/2007, pending in the Court

Najeeb.. 1/4

34.Cr.Appln.154-2021.doc

of learned Magistrate 71^st Court, at Bandra.

2.

The Applicants are Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23,

24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43,

44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,

59, 60 and 61 in the case no. 352/PW/2007 (case for

short).

3.

On 17^th July, 2006, FIR No. 396/2006 was lodged

by one Suryakant Salvi, Sub Inspector attached to

Bandra Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 149,

332, 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section

37(3) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, against

sixty one persons. The Applicants and Co-accused

were employed with the MCGM as a casual labour.

They were members of Kachra Vahatuk Shramik Sangh.

On 17^th July, 2006, Applicants had organized a

demonstration outside MCGM H/E Ward Office against

the Corporation. The subject FIR arose out of

Najeeb.. 2/4

34.Cr.Appln.154-2021.doc

demonstration organized by the Union. Be that as it

may, the Roznama produced before me, shows that

without following the procedure contemplated under

Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

proclamations were issued in September, 2018.

Neverthless, Roznama shows there was no material on

record to infer that the Applicants were concealing

themselves, so as to avoid execution of warrant. In

fact, warrants were also not issued. Prosecution

fairly admits this fact. Thus, it is a case of non-

compliance of Section 82(1) and 82(2) of the Cr.P.C.

4.

In consideration of the facts of the case and

for the reasons stated, the proclamations and the

standing warrants issued against the Applicants in

the case no. 352/PW/2007 are recalled and quashed.

The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(a) and (b).

5.

Learned Counsel for the Applicants undertakes

Najeeb.. 3/4

34.Cr.Appln.154-2021.doc

that the Applicants shall remain present before the

learned Magistrate on the next date of the hearing.

Statement is accepted as an Undertaking to this

Court.

6.

Application is allowed and disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Najeeb.. 4/4

MOHAMMAD

NAJEEB

MOHAMMAD

QAYYUM

Digitally signed

by MOHAMMAD

NAJEEB

MOHAMMAD

QAYYUM

Date:

2021.09.09

17:20:24 +0530