E O Bimola Devi and 7 Ors v. I O Guni Devi

P a g e | 1

Items No. 33-36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL Cril. Petn. No. 16 of 2016

E (O) Bimola Devi and 7 Ors. …Petitioners - Versus –

I (O) Guni Devi …Respondents With Cril. Petn. No. 17 of 2016 With Cril. Petn. No. 4 of 2016 With Cril. Petn. No. 5 of 2016

BEFORE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

04.10.2023 [1]

Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Cril. Petn. No. 4 of 2016 and Cril. Petn. No. 5 of 2016; Mr. H. Premkrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner in Cril. Petn. No. 16 of 2016 and Cril. Petn. No. 17 of 2016. Heard also Mr. L. Birendrakumar, learned counsel for the respondents in Cril. Petn. No. 5 of 2016 and Cril. Petn. No. 16 of 2016. [2]

When the matters are taken up today, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Cril. Petn. No. 4 of 2016 and Cril. Petn. No. 5 of 2016 represented that the criminal petitions were filed challenging the cognizance taken by the learned CJM, Imphal East, Manipur in Cril. (Complaint) Case No. 77 of 2015 in respect of Cril. Petn. No. 16 of 2016 dated 24.07.2015; Cril. (Complaint) Case No. 73 of 2015 in respect of Cril. Petn. No. 17 of SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2023.10.06 17:10:43 +05'30' P a g e | 2

2016 dated 06.07.2015; Cril. (Complt.) Case No. 73 of 2015 dated

06.07.2015 in respect of Cril. Petn. No. 4 of 2016 and Cril. Misc. Case No. 149 of 2016 (Cril. (Complt) Case No. 77 of 2015) dated

30.03.2016 in respect of Cril. Petn. No. 5 of 2016. [3]

After issuance of notice, the respondents counsel also appeared through Mr. L. Birendrakumar and the matter is pending till date. [4]

Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. L. Birendrakumar, learned counsel for the respondents represented that though the petitions were filed challenging the orders of taking cognizance by the learned CJM, Imphal East, now the trial is going on. Therefore, the petitioners who are accused in this case are ready to face the trial before the learned CJM, Imphal East. Therefore, both the counsels prayed this Court that criminal petitions may be closed by giving liberty to the petitioners to pursue the cases before the learned CJM, Imphal East and the time limit may be fixed for disposal of the case by the learned CJM, Imphal East. [5]

Mr. Birendrakumar, learned counsel for the respondents also agreed for the same stating that if this Court is inclined to direct the learned CJM, Imphal East to dispose of the cases on merits within stipulated period of time, they are ready to co-operate the trial of the case. P a g e | 3

[6]

Considering the nature of arguments and request made by both the parties, I am inclined to dispose of the criminal petitions with the following directions. [7]

In the result, a) all the criminal petitions in Cril. Petn. No. 16 of 2016, Cril. Petn. No. 17 of 2016, Cril. Petn. No. 4 of 2016 and Cril. Petn. No. 5 of 2016 are disposed of; b) the learned CJM, Imphal East is hereby directed to dispose of the Criminal (Complaint) Case No. 73 of 2015 and Criminal (Complaint) Case No. 77 of 2015 within the stipulated period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. [8]

It is made clear that this Court has not considered the case on merits and it is open to the learned CJM, Imphal East to consider the cases on its own merits and dispose of the same within the stipulated period of time. [9]

Accordingly, these criminal petitions are disposed of.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sushil