22-REVN-253-2004 @1.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 253 OF 2004 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 HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN NADAF Date: 2026.09.16 13:51:04 +0530 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