Dismissed

Lalit Babubhai Sanghavi v. Prithviraj Jaychand Oswal and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2013WP/125/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal writ petition was filed by an accused challenging the Sessions Court's dismissal of his revision against the Magistrate's order permitting a complainant to adduce further evidence. The single judge dismissed the petition, finding no impropriety in the Magistrate's discretion nor a case for extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.

Lalit Babubhai Sanghavi Vs Prithviraj Jaychand… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CWP-125.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 125 OF 2012

¶6

LALIT BABUBHAI SANGHAVI

¶7

.. PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

PRITHVIRAJ JAYCHAND OSWAL & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

None for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Prithaviraj Jaychand Oswal – R. No. 1 – appearing-inperson, present.

¶12

Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State

¶13

CORAM:-ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 12/07/2013

¶14

P.C.

¶15

None present for the petitioner, when called out. The

¶16

matter appeared before the court yesterday, but even at that

¶17

time none was present for the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petition is being decided after going through the same, the annexures thereto and after hearing the

1/4

CWP-125.12

respondent No. 1 and the learned AP.

¶22

The petitioner is the accused in Complaint Case No. 401/2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Kolhapur. The said complaint has been filed by the respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant)and is in respect of an offence punishable u/s 418 of the IPC.

¶23

The complainant's evidence before charge was recorded and the matter was kept for the cross-examination of the complainant before charge. The complainant, at that time, made an application before the Magistrate praying that, he be recalled for giving further evidence as he wanted to tender in evidence certain documents and get them exhibited. He submitted that the said documents were, due to inadvertance, not tendered earlier in evidence. This prayer was granted by the learned magistrate and the complainant was further examined. The documents tendered by him were taken on record, marked and exhibited. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the court of

2/4

CWP-125.12

sessions by filing an application for revision challenging the order passed by the magistrate recalling the complainant and permitting him to adduce further evidence. The court of sessions after hearing the parties dismissed the revision application holding, inter alia, that the order challenged was an interlocutory one and that the bar u/s 397(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure applied thereto.

¶28

I have gone through the order dated 30/6/2010 passed by the learned magistrate, recalling the complainant for further examination which order as aforesaid was challenged by the petitioner by approaching the court of sessions.

¶29

I do not find anything improper or illegal in the order passed by the magistrate or by the court of sessions in revision. The complaint was at a preliminary stage. Evidence before charge was being recorded. It was within the jurisdiction of the magistrate to permit the complainant to examine himself further and tender further evidence in support of the complaint.

3/4

CWP-125.12

It cannot be said that the discretion that is available to the magistrate was exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably by him. No prejudice was likely to be caused to the petitioner by permitting evidence to be adduced as aforesaid. The petitioner would have got an opportunity to challenge the evidence, even before the charge and even thereafter in the event of charge being framed, by corss-examining the complainant on the relevant aspects.

¶34

The writ jurisdiction is of extraordinary nature. It is basically to be exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. I do not think that a case for invoking this extraordinary jurisdiction has been made out.

¶35

The petitioner has not chosen to remain present and make submissions in support of the petition.

¶36

The petition is dismissed with costs, quantified at

¶37

Rs.1,000/-.

¶38

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶39

4/4

Lalit Babubhai Sanghavi v. Prithviraj Jaychand Oswal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Babubhai Sanghavi v. Prithviraj Jaychand Oswal and Anr.

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

The Cosmopolitan Education and Anr. Vs Prakash Manmohandas and Anr.

Ramchandra Ambadas Awaghade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hirji Malshi Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul @ Akshay Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravi Shrichand Punjabi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Laxman Narkar Vs the State of Maharashtra