Pass an order we can understand, SC tells Bombay HChttps://indianexpress.com/article/india/pass-an-order-we-can-understand-sc-tells-bombay-hc-6108873/

Pass an order we can understand, SC tells Bombay HC

The court was hearing an appeal by Surekha Nitin Kapse, a resident of Pimplas, in Maharashtra’s Ahmednagar district, against the August 18 judgment of a bench of Justices T V Nalawade and K K Sonawane of Aurangabad bench of Bombay HC.

In her petition, filed through advocate Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Surekha stated that the High Court had passed a “cryptic order” without even dealing with her submissions, and “without reco-rding any finding to that effect”.

The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court, saying that it was “unintelligible” and that the court “could not decipher what has been decided by the High Court”.

“We accordingly set aside the order and remit the matter to the High Court. We request the High Court to pass an order we can understand,” a bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose ordered.

The court was hearing an appeal by Surekha Nitin Kapse, a resident of Pimplas, in Maharashtra’s Ahmednagar district, against the August 18 judgment of a bench of Justices T V Nalawade and K K Sonawane of Aurangabad bench of Bombay HC.

In her petition, filed through advocate Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Surekha stated that the High Court had passed a “cryptic order” without even dealing with her submissions, and “without reco-rding any finding to that effect”.

Advertising

The matter related to two cross-complaints filed at Rahata police station by Surekha and one Sitaram Babasaheb Kapse.

In her petition in the apex court, Surekha stated that her husband Nitin Gautaram Kapse had lodged a police complaint on August 21, 2016 against one Avinash Babasaheb Kapse for allegedly threatening to attack their son. She alleged that a day later, Avinash and a few other men arrived at their home with swords and sticks and abused her for making a police complaint. They allegedly attacked her son and nephew. The petitioner stated that she filed an FIR the same day.

On August 23, another FIR was registered on a complaint by Sitaram Kapse, accusing Nitin Kapse of murdering Avinash.

According to Sitraram, Avinash and Nitin were members of the BJP, but Avinash’s decision to join the Congress allegedly led to the crime.

Surekha’s petition stated while the police had submitted chargesheet in the murder case, the investigating officer filed a B summary (filed when police do not find any evidence against the accused to file a chargesheet). She said the Sub Divisional Officer did not accept the investigating officer’s report and sought further probe.

Meanwhile, trial in the murder case had already started, following which she moved HC seeking a stay on it. Surekha argued that it would prejudice her case if the trial proceeded.

The HC, in a two-page order, declined to stay the trial.