SUNIL BABURAO SHINDE Vs. MEGHA SUNIL SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) BY the present application, the applicant, seeks to review the order dated 16th December, 2000 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 208 of 2000 by this Court and to restore the said writ petition for hearing the matter on merits.

(3.) AS regards the maintainability of the application in the manner in which it has been filed, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Krishna Narain Lal and another v. State of Bihar and another), reported in 1999 (9) S. C. C. 247 it is submitted that the bar under section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not affect in the case in hand as the order dated 16-12-2000 is not a judgment within the meaning of the said expression under section 362 of the Cri. P. C. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that, in view of the framing of the charge, there is no cause for the applicant to approach the Magistrate objecting to the charge already framed and in that regard reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra and others), reported in A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 94 and (Nandkishor Rampal Lohiya and others v. State of Maharashtra), reported in 2001 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. (N. B.)546 : 2001 Cri. L. J. 2742. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others), reported in 2001 (1) Mh. L. J. 465 submitted that this Court is functus officio in connection with Writ Petition No. 208 of 2000, and therefore, this Court cannot entertain the application filed by the applicant.