The High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.412 of 2009 dismissed a petition challenging the Trial Court's decision not to frame a charge. The Court held that without prima facie evidence of dishonest intention or witness deposition, a charge under section 465 IPC could not arise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.412 OF 2009
EDM Technologies (India) Pvt.Ltd.
..Petitioners.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
..Respondents.
Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr. Counsel i/b. S.R.Mithare for Petitioners. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for State.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J
DATED :- NOVEMBER 10, 2009.
P.C.
2
the accused with an idea of extracting money from Shri J.B.Patil. In other words, it was done with dishonest intention. However, when evidence is recorded of the Complainant, this aspect has not been deposed to at all. In absence of tittle of evidence with regard to the ingredient of dishonest intention, question of framing charge under section 465 of I.P.Code does not
arise. Hence, no merit. Petition is dismissed.
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a charge should be framed under section 465 of the I.P.Code in absence of evidence establishing dishonest intention.
Whether the non-examination of witnesses to establish the ingredients of section 465 justifies dismissal of the petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Edem Technologies (India) Pvt.Ltd.
The State of Maharashtra
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
