Dismissed

Santosh Eknath Bharti and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC12 Nov 2013APPLN/2266/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applicants sought to quash proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, arguing the police report did not disclose an offence. The Court held that quashing before the filing of charges was unnecessary and refused to entertain the application.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; proceedings not quashed; applicant can approach Magistrate for discharge if charge is groundless.

Santosh Eknath Bharti and Others Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2266 OF 2013

¶3

SANTOSH EKNATH BHARTI AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶4

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶5

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. D.Y. Nandedkar APP for Respondents: Mr. P.N.Muley Mr. A.S. More advocate For R/2

¶6

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶7

Dated: November 12, 2013

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

Heard.

¶10

The applicants are the accused nos. 2 to 8 in RCC No. 47/2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paranda. The remaining accused i.e. accused no.1 is the husband of the respondent no.2 who is the original complainant and on whose complaint after investigation a charge sheet came to be filed against the applicants and the said accused no.1 in respect of offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC, 323 of IPC, 504 of IPC and 506 of IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶11

By the present application, the applicants are seeking to quash the proceedings filed against them on the ground that the police report and accompanying documents do not disclose commission of any offence by them.

¶12

Admittedly, no charge has yet been framed in the matter. The substance of the contentions of the applicants is that,

¶13

aaa/-

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶15

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2266 OF 2013

¶16

charge against them is groundless. If this is so, this aspect of the matter can be brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate by them. Surely, if it would appear to the learned Magistrate that charge against the applicants, or any of them, is groundless, the applicants would be discharged. It is also clear that the Magistrate would be bound to hear the applicants on this aspect.

¶17

The invocation of the powers of this Court before the Magistrate has applied its mind to the aspect which are being raised by the applicants, is uncalled for. 6. Under these circumstances, I decline to entertain the application.

¶18

The application is rejected with the aforesaid observations.

¶19

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶20

aaa/-

Santosh Eknath Bharti and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Eknath Bharti and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Kamal Ahmed Syed Ali Hussain, Died Thr. L.R. Syed Ahmed Hussain Vs Padma Lobhaji Late and Ors.

Rafikkhan Abbukhan Pathan Vs Sajedabi Rafikkhan Pathan and Another

Akul Laxman Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sonya @ Bhausaheb Dadaji Desale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Ramhari Thube and Ors. Vs the Collector , Ahmednagar and Ors.

Prakash Dattatraya Patki Vs Mahadeo Limbaji (Limbraj) Pawar and Another