Dismissed

Mohd. Abdul Rehman S/O Mohd. Khasim and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC24 Sept 2013WP/120/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition challenging an order issuing process under IPC Sections 323, 504, and 506 read with 34. The High Court refused interference, noting the version of the petitioner already being prosecuted for the same incident, thus deeming it proper to try the petitioners on the respondent's complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no interference with the order issuing process.

Mohd. Abdul Rehman S/O Mohd. Khasim and Others Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.W.P.120.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 120 OF 2013

¶5

Mohd. Abdul Rehman S/o Mohd. Khasim Age : 40 years, Occ : Service, R/o Khudbai Nagar, Near Mukhed Function Hall, Nanded, Tq. & District Nanded. 2. Mohd. Jilani S/o Mohd. Khasim Age : 45 years, Occ : Service, R/o New Masjid Ganimpura, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 3. Shamshuddin Altamash S/o Mohd. Jilani, Age : 21 years, Occ : Service, R/o New Masjid Ganimpura, Nanded, Tq. & District Nanded presently R/o Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. VERSUS

¶6

..PETITIONERS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Itwara, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2. Mohd. Akbar S/o Inbrahim Saheb Naat, Age : 35 years, Occ : Service, R/o Karbala Sharif Bhangarwala’s House, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ..RESPONDENTS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Narvade Patil Ravindra B. APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. P.N. Muley Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Nilesh Patil h/f Mr. G.P. Shinde ...

¶8

Cri.W.P.120.13.odt

¶9

¶10

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: September 24, 2013

¶11

ORAL ORDER :

¶12

Heard Mr. R.B. Narvade Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard Mr. Nilesh Patil h/f Mr. G.P. Shinde, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶13

The respondent no.2 has filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 504 of IPC, Section 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC against the present petitioners. The learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant on oath, concluded that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding and issued process with respect to the aforesaid offences requiring the petitioners to appear and answer to the charge of the aforesaid offences.

¶14

Aggrieved by the order issuing process, the petitioners approached the Court of Sessions but, the revision application filed by them was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded.

¶15

It is under these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶16

Cri.W.P.120.13.odt

¶17

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. With his assistance, I have gone through the Petition, a copy of the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 herein, the order issuing process, as passed by the learned Magistrate and the order passed by the Sessions Judge in revision.

¶19

It cannot be disputed that going by the avernments made in the complaint and by taking the same at face value, there is a case for proceeding against the petitioners. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complaint is false and has been filed as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner no.1 herein against the respondent no.2 herein (accused no.1 therein) and another. It is submitted that there are other disputes pending between the parties, and that there was a strong motive on the part of the respondent no.2 to falsely implicate the petitioners. It is also submitted that there is some discrepancy about the time of the alleged incident, as mentioned in the complaint, and that this can be seen from the complaint itself.

¶20

I have carefully considered the matter.

¶21

The complaint relates to an alleged incident that has taken place on 18.08.2012. Interestingly, the complaint filed by the petitioner no.1 herein against the respondent no.2 and another, also relates to an incident dated 18.08.2012. Process has been

¶22

4 Cri.W.P.120.13.odt

¶23

issued on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner no.1 also. At this stage, therefore, it cannot be doubted that some incident between the parties has indeed taken place on 18.08.2012.

¶24

It is therefore clear that the complaint filed by the petitioner no.1 is the version of the petitioner no.1 with respect to the incident, which as aforesaid cannot be doubted to have taken place; while the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein is his version of the same incident. Since the respondent no.2 and another are being prosecuted on the allegations made by the petitioner no.1, it would be just and proper that the petitioners are also tried on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 relating to the same incident. This is particularly so because the learned Magistrate has found that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is also the same. Under these circumstances, this Court would not interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It would not be possible to come to the conclusion that the version of the incident dated 18.08.2012 as given by the petitioner no.1 is true, and the version of the respondent no.2 is untrue.

¶25

Consequently, there is no case for interference.

¶26

The Petition is rejected.

¶27

Cri.W.P.120.13.odt

¶28

¶29

Needless to say that the observations about the complaint prima facie disclosing the commission of offence by the petitioners are made in the context of sufficiency of the grounds for proceeding against the petitioners, and obviously the trial Court shall not guided by such observations, while deciding the matters on the basis of the evidence as may be adduced before it.

¶30

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶31

¶32

sga/

Mohd. Abdul Rehman S/O Mohd. Khasim and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Abdul Rehman S/O Mohd. Khasim 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Ranchod Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhagwanta Bhau Dhamane Vs the State of Maharshtra

Pravin Santosh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kalim Dange S/O Abdul Raheman Dange and Others Vs Uneza Tarannum D/O Babb Patel

Sanjay Jagdishprasad Ladda Vs the State of Mah

Majalgaon Co-Op Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs Ganpat Megha Chavan and Anr.