Dismissed

Geeta Khare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2013APPW/66/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court considered a criminal application challenging the impact of a previous order quashing proceedings against the applicant's son. The applicant argued adverse findings had been made against her. The court dismissed the application, holding it misconceived as the applicant had no opportunity to contest the earlier petition to determine guilt.

What the court decided

AI extract

Geeta Khare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

APPW-66.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2013

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3240 OF 2011

GEETA KHARE

.. APPLICANT

In the matter of

Harshukumar Khare

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.... RESPONDENTS

¶15

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/b S. N. Birdar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Ravindra Adsure i/b Vevek Salunkhe in CWP 3240/12. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State

¶16

CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 20/06/2013

¶17

P.C.

¶18

Heard Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

The applicant is the accused in R.C.C. No. 434 of 2009,

1/5

APPW-66.13

pending before the J.M.F.C., Kalyan. Earlier there was one more accused in the said case – one Harshukumar Khare – son of the applicant. Harshukumar Khare had filed a writ petition –

¶24

being Writ Petition No. 3240 of 2011, challenging the proceedings against him, and praying that the same be quashed. This court, after hearing all the necessary parties, by an order dated 2/5/2012 quashed the prosecution against the said Harshukumar Khare, observing that there was no case for proceeding against him. While dealing with the petition filed by the said Harshukumar Khare, the court had an occasion to consider the case of the prosecution, as a whole, and naturally had to discuss the allegations as levelled in the charge-sheet against the present applicant also.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the observations made by this court, in its order dated 2/5/2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 3240 of 2011 are being highlighted by the counsel engaged by the original complainant to claim

2/5

APPW-66.13

that, this court has already recorded some adverse findings against the present applicant.

¶30

It is submitted before me by the learned counsel for the applicant that contentions are raised before the magistrate to the effect that, the guilt of the applicant is already established, in view of the observations made by the court in the aforesaid order dated 2/5/2012 allowing the aforesaid writ petition.

¶31

It is a matter of common sense that, the observations had been made in the context of maintainability, legality and desirability of the prosecution against the said Harshukumar Khare. Whether there were grounds for proceeding against the applicant or not, was not a question which arose in the said writ petition. In fact, certain parts of the order passed by this court, which are highlighted in the present application, are basically for narrating the prosecution case itself as reflected against the applicant; and no finding has been given by this court with respect to the correctness or otherwise of any of the allegations.

3/5

APPW-66.13

The only 'finding' - if it may be called so - is that there

¶36

were grounds for proceeding against the present applicant but not against the said Harshukumar Khare.

¶37

Even this finding would be only a tentative one and in the context of the prosecution case as put forth. It is also a matter of common sense that the applicant had no occasion to contest the said petition and, therefore, no findings, even prima facie , could be recorded against her, while disposing of the said writ petition.

¶38

The application is misconceived. Since the legal position is clear, it is not possible for any one to claim that, the case against the applicant has been adjudged by this court while deciding the said writ petition.

¶39

In view of this, I do not wish to entertain the present application. The same is dismissed with the above observations.

¶40

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

4/5

APPW-66.13

md.saleem

5/5

Geeta Khare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Geeta Khare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs the Sr Inspector of Police Economic Offence Wing and Ors.

Suman Shankar Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vivek Vishnu Kapse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Abdul Ajij Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran @ D. K. Baban Dombale Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Pratima Achhendra Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.