Dismissed

Atmaram Kherajmal Nagpal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jun 2013WP/1040/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal writ petition filed by petitioner for quashing of prosecution proceedings was dismissed. Court directed petitioner to withdraw the petition allowing the petitioner time to seek discharge from the trial court. Trial court mandated to decide discharge application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed. Petitioner at liberty to seek discharge from trial court within three months.

Atmaram Kherajmal Nagpal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CWP-1040.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2012

¶6

ATMARAM KHERAJMAL NAGPAL.. PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr. M. G. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the State

¶10

CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 17/06/2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard Mr. M. G. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. A. A. Mane, learned APP for the State.

¶13

Since the proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that, the police report accompanying documents do not make out a case for proceeding against the petitioner, the learned APP submits that these grounds can very well be taken by the petitioner before the trial court itself. It is true that, the

1/3

CWP-1040.12

statutory remedy of seeking a discharge from the trial court itself is available to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that no charge has been framed as yet by the trial court.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the only difficulty that the petitioner being aged and sick would not be in a position to attend the court of the learned Magistrate. In that regard, it needs to be observed that, it would be open for the petitioner to seek a discharge by making an appropriate application, signed by his advocate, without remaining presentin-person, before the Magistrate. In fact, it would be the duty cast upon the Magistrate to consider, whether or not, there are grounds for proceeding against the petitioner and even the other accused by framing a charge.

¶19

In view of these observations, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, but submits that, some time limit may be given for the trial court to decide the question of discharge. This submission is

2/3

CWP-1040.12

reasonable.

The petition is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as such.

¶25

The petitioner shall be at liberty to seek discharge from the trial court by making an appropriate application in that regard.

¶26

In the event of such application being made, the trial court shall decide the same within a period of three months from the date on which it is made.

¶27

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶28

md.saleem

¶29

3/3

Atmaram Kherajmal Nagpal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atmaram Kherajmal Nagpal v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Anil Phulchand Dhiwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharda Polysolours Private Limited and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tag Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Edge Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Jitendra Madhukar Ghunte Vs the State of Maharashtra

Priyanka Purander Bagera Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Uttam Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra