Allowed

Lagamanna Satu Koli and Ors. v. Maruti Appu Koli and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Oct 2010WP/1824/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order rejecting an application to quash a charge framed without evidence is unsustainable, following Supreme Court precedent. The rule was made absolute regarding the quashing prayer, with liberty to file a separate petition for quashing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the application to quash the charge was quashed; rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).

Lagamanna Satu Koli and Ors. Vs Maruti Appu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

cr wp 182410.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1824 OF 2010

¶5

Lagamanna Satu Koli & Ors

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

Vs

¶8

Maruti Appu Koli & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Mr. Kiran C. Shirguppe for the Petitioners

¶11

Mr. P.M. Arjunwadekar for Respondent No. 1

¶12

Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State

¶13

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J

¶14

DATE : 12th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners-original accused, learned advocate for respondent no.1-original complainant and learned APP for the State.

¶17

2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

¶18

3. Respondent no. 1 filed a private complaint against the present petitioners under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The said complaint is numbered as Summary Criminal Case No. 233 of 2001 and it is pending before the learned JMFC, Kurudnwad.

¶19

4. The petitioner filed an application [Exh. 112/A] before the learned Magistrate for quashing the charge framed by

¶20

¶21

cr wp 182410.doc

¶22

the Court against them. The case of the petitioners is
that there was no hearing before the charge. Learned
advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned
Magistrate without taking any evidence, has framed the
charge against them. The learned Magistrate by order
dated 30th March 2010 rejected the said application
holding that there is no obligation on the part of the
Magistrate to record evidence before the charge.

¶23

5. Learned advocate for respondent no. 1 submitted that the Magistrate can frame charge even without any evidence having been taken under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr reported in (2009) 14 SCC 115 held that 'a view that the Magistrate can frame a charge without any evidence having been taken under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. is not a correct view'. Thus, in view of the observation of the Supreme Court in Ajoy Kumar Ghose (Supra), the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable, hence it is quashed.

¶24

6. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).

¶25

7. As far as prayer for quashing of proceedings is concerned, liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer separate petition for aforesaid prayer.

¶26

¶27

cr wp 182410.doc

¶28

 [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶29

Lagamanna Satu Koli and Ors. v. Maruti Appu Koli and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lagamanna Satu Koli and Ors. v. Maruti Appu Koli and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkrishna Ramchandra Gade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashta Vs Ramchandra Hari Patil

Brahmhadev Advyappa Salgar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath Piraji Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Manohar Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akhtar Alil Shaikh Vs A.B. Kodnani and Anr.