Applicants begging intervention under inherent powers sought to examine sufficiency of prosecution grounds before trial court. This court held such premature interference violates procedure and rejected application.
Application rejected; applicants allowed liberty to apply for discharge before Trial Court.
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.
Cri.Appln1410.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1410 OF 2013
Dyaneshwar S/o Bhanudas Jagdhane
and another
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
The State of Maharashtra
and another.
..RESPONDENTS
Advocates for Applicants : Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi & Mr. A.R. Tapse
APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. P.N. Muley
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. N.B. Narwade
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 22, 2013
ORAL ORDER :-
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants.
2.The applicants are the accused in
Sessions Case No. 86/2013 pending before the
Sessions Court at Aurangabad. There are two other
accused in the said case. The allegation in the
police report and the accompanying documents is
that the accused persons have committed offences
punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and Section 306 of IPC read with
2 Cri.Appln1410.13.odt
Section 34 of IPC. According to the applicants,
there is absolutely no case for proceeding against
them. The applicant no.1 is the brother-in-law of
the deceased, on whose dying declaration the First
Information Report came to be registered. The
applicant no.2 is the wife of the applicant no.1.
considered, whether or not, there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the applicants, or
any of them. The applicants, by this application
invoking inherent powers of this Court want this
Court to decide, whether or not, there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
applicants.
4.It is settled legal position that
interference by invoking the inherent powers of
this Court at the stage when the trial Court is
yet undecided about sufficiency or otherwise, of
the grounds for proceeding against the applicants,
is uncalled for.
Cri.Appln1410.13.odt
3
5.The learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that there is no bar to exercise the
inherent powers inspite of availability of an
alternative remedy. He submits that there are a
number of cases where the Courts have entertained
the applications under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, inspite of availability of an
alternative remedy.
6.Undoubtedly, the issue is not one of
jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its
inherent powers, the question is only of
propriety. Now, when the only challenge to the
proceeding is on the basis that it does not make
out a case for proceeding against the applicants,
which the trial court is bound to examine in view
of the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, there would be no
question of invoking inherent powers of this Court
before the trial Court undertakes this exercise.
It would amount to interfering with the due and
Cri.Appln1410.13.odt
4
normal procedure.
7.In view of this, interference with the
order is not called for. It is however, made clear
that the applicants shall be at liberty to make an
application for discharge; and it is needless to
say that on such an application being made before
it, the Trial Court shall consider the same in
accordance with law and on merits.
8.The application is rejected with the
aforesaid observations.
sga/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to examine sufficiency of grounds for prosecution while the trial court has not yet exercised its power under Sections 227
Dyaneshwar S/o Bhanudas Jagdhane
The State of Maharashtra
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court