RAJESH RAMAVTAR TIWARIversusVIJAYA VINOD PATIL and ANR.

                                                                          22-REVN-253-2004 @1.doc




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           Digitally
           signed by
           HUSENBASHA
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN    NADAF
NADAF      Date:
           2026.09.16
           13:51:04               CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 253 OF 2004
           +0530



                        Rajesh Ramavtar Tiwari                            ....Applicant
                              V/s
                        Vijaya Vinod Patil and Anr.                       ....Respondents

                                                        ***
                        Mr. Dnyaneshwar J. Deshmukh for the Applicant.
                        None for Respondent No.1.
                        Ms. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyar, APP for Respondent No.2/State.
                                                        ***

                                                             CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                             DATE    : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                        P.C. :

                        1.       Heard   learned   counsel    for   Revision    Applicant/Org.
                        Complainant and learned APP for Respondent No.2/State. None
                        appears for Respondent No.1 despite name of his advocate appearing
                        on board.

                        2.       This matter was listed before this Court recently on
                        19.01.2026, 25.03.2026, 30.04.2026, 18.06.2026 & 14.08.2026 and
                        on all these dates, nobody appeared for Respondent No.1. It appears
                        that Respondent No.1 is not interested in contesting the matter on
                        merits.

                        3.       Original Complainant has filed this revision challenging the
                        order dated 02.07.2004 passed by Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
                        Judge, Palghar in Criminal Revision Application No. 86 of 2003,
                        thereby setting aside the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First

                        Husen                                 1
                                                  22-REVN-253-2004 @1.doc




Class (‘JMFC’ for short), Palghar in Misc. Application No.107 of 2002.

                            BACKGROUND

4.      At the instance of Revision Applicant, Crime No. I-120/2001
has been registered against three accused (Mr. Vinod Patil, Mr. Daya
& present Respondent No.1 Smt. Vijaya Vinod Patil-wife of accused
No.1 Vinod). After the charge-sheet was filed, case was registered as
RCC/288/2001. The offences involved are under Sections 363, 352,
342, 448, 420, 323, 504, 506, 384 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short).

5.      Revision Applicant/Org. Complainant filed an application being
Criminal Misc. Application No. 189 of 2001 under Section 457 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’, for short) seeking return of
property such as computer, AC, revolving chair, music system and a
key to flat No.105 along with the document about said flat, which is
alleged to have been secured by the Accused by kidnapping the
Complainant and wrongfully confining him. The learned JMFC,
Palghar by order dated 19.10.2001 allowed the said Criminal Misc.
Application No. 189 of 2001 and held that if the articles are not
returned, there will be irreparable loss to the Revision Applicant and
therefore subject to condition that Revision Applicant should not
transfer the flat, key and articles were returned on furnishing bond
on solvent surety.

6.      During subsistence of this order, it appears that Respondent
No.1/Accused No.3 filed and pressed another application (Criminal
Misc. Application No.107 of 2002) praying for depositing the flat key

Husen                                 2
                                                       22-REVN-253-2004 @1.doc




in the Court. This application was rejected by the concerned
Magistrate by order dated 05.07.2002 holding that since the keys are
returned to the Complainant under earlier order dated 19.10.2001,
the only remedy available with the Accused is to challenge the said
order dated 19.10.2001 in Appellate or Revisional Court and without
said order being challenged, it is not possible to pass order as prayed
by Respondent No.1.

7.      It further appears that Respondent No.1 challenged this order
dated 05.07.2002 by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 86 of
2003 in the concerned Sessions Court and by present impugned order
dated 02.07.2004, the concerned Sessions Judge has allowed the
revision and further holding that Respondent No.1 through her
husband - Accused No. 1 Mr. Vinod Anant Patil are entitled to get the
seized keys of the said flat from the Complainant. Similar direction
was issued against the Revision Applicant/Org. Complainant that he
shall hand over the flat key either to Respondent No.1/Accused No. 3
or to the Investigating Officer.

8.      In these circumstances, the Revision Applicant filed the present
revision application, in which by Order dated 16.07.2004, the
impugned order and all directions thereunder were stayed. Record
indicates that thereafter on 29.08.2005, following order was passed:-

         “1. Rule. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent
         No.1 waives service. The learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2
         waives service. To be placed for hearing on 17th October, 2005.
         Ad-interim relief granted on 16th July, 2004 will continue to
         operate. Grant of ad-interim relief will not prevent the parties from

Husen                                    3
                                                        22-REVN-253-2004 @1.doc




         approaching the Civil Court and securing appropriate orders from
         the Civil Court. It is made clear that the trial is not stayed and the
         learned Trial Court can proceed with the trial.”


9.      Record further shows that on 24.10.2005 this Court continued
the ad-interim order dated 16.07.2004 during pendency of the
revision application.

10.      It is therefore clear that while admitting this revision
application, this Court has already clarified that parties are not
prevented from approaching the Civil Court and securing appropriate
orders and the concerned trial (criminal trial) was not stayed.

11.     Learned advocate for Revision Applicant has placed on record
affidavit along with photocopies of certified copies and separate
bunch of certified copies also. Roznama (certified copy) shows that
the concerned RCC/288/2001 is stayed even today with endorsement
that it is stayed by the High Court. Obviously, the Court of the
concerned JMFC at Palghar is either misled or incorrect information
has been supplied, creating an impression that the trial is stayed.

12.     It is important to note that both on 29.08.2005 as well as
24.10.2005, Respondent No.1/accused was represented by her
concerned advocate. Therefore, it cannot be said that Respondent
No.1 was not aware of this situation.

13.     In such background, learned counsel for the Applicant has
submitted that unless the order in his favour dated 19.10.2001 about
return of keys, is not challenged, varied or set aside, learned Sessions


Husen                                     4
                                                    22-REVN-253-2004 @1.doc




Judge was not justified in passing impugned order in a challenge to
some other order dated 05.07.2002.

14.     I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
As indicated above, nobody appeared for Respondent No.1/accused.

15.     From the perusal of the interim order itself it is clear that the
keys were seized/recovered from Accused No. 1 Vinod Patil, with
whom the agreement in question about the said flat is alleged to have
been executed. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that
keys are recovered from Accused No.1, learned Magistrate has
already concluded that unless keys are returned to the Complainant
there will be irreparable loss to him. Necessary precaution has
already been taken by making the return of keys subject to condition
that Revision Applicant/Complainant should not transfer the flat
without notice of the Court. In such situation, when Order dated
19.10.2001 stood in favour of the Revision Applicant unchallenged,
learned Sessions Judge was not justified in passing the impugned
order arising out of challenge to some other order. The effect of
impugned order has already been stayed by this Court and has
remained stayed for last more than 22 years. Unfortunately, the
criminal trial has also not proceeded.

16.     Therefore, above peculiar facts of the case call for the
interference in the impugned order.

17.     Hence this Revision Application succeeds. The impugned order
dated 02.07.2004 passed by Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Palghar in Criminal Revision Application No. 86 of 2003 is quashed

Husen                                    5
                                               22-REVN-253-2004 @1.doc




and set aside. Criminal Revision Application No. 86 of 2003 is
rejected. The concerned JMFC at Palghar is directed to proceed with
the Criminal Trial bearing No. RCC/288/2001 in accordance with law
and expeditiously.

18.     Rule is made absolute and Criminal Revision Application is
disposed of in above terms.




                                           (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Husen                               6