Dismissed

Ashwinikumar Bhimashankar Jujgar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC21 Nov 2013WP/374/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings for alleged abuse of Section 498A IPC, the High Court held that interference is uncalled for before the Magistrate decides on sufficiency of material for framing charges under Section 239 CrPC, advising the petitioners to raise such contentions before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no interference with proceedings before the Magistrate.

Ashwinikumar Bhimashankar Jujgar and Others Vs the… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.W.P.374.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2013

¶5

Ashwinikumar S/o Bhimashankar Jujgar
and others

¶6

 ..PETITIONERS

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

and another

¶10

..RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. A.P. Basarkar
APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. G.R. Ingole

¶13

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
 Dated: November 21, 2013

¶14

ORAL ORDER :-

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶16

petitioners. The petitioners are the accused in

¶17

Criminal Case No. 6/2012 pending before the

¶18

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. The

¶19

case arose on the basis of the first information

¶20

report registered vide C.R. No.I-133/2012 of

¶21

Satara Police Station, Aurangabad at the instance

¶22

of the respondent no.2 herein, who is the wife of

¶23

the petitioner no.1. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3

¶24

are the mother and father respectively, of the

¶25

2 Cri.W.P.374.13.odt

¶26

petitioner no.1. By the present Petition,

¶27

invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this
Court, the petitioners pray that the proceeding
against them be quashed and set aside.

¶28

2.The substance of all the arguments

¶29

advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the
avernments in the first information report are
false, and further that, the police report and the
accompanying documents do not make out a case of
any offences against the petitioners.

¶30

3.Admittedly, no charge has yet been

¶31

framed in the matter. In other wards, the learned
Magistrate has not yet decided, whether or not,

¶32

there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate is
bound to decide this aspect of the matter in terms
of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶33

4.When this aspect, viz :- that the

¶34

Magistrate has not yet applied its mind to the

¶35

3 Cri.W.P.374.13.odt

¶36

material found in the charge-sheet and has not

¶37

been yet come to the conclusion about the
sufficiency of material for framing a charge
against the petitioners or any of them, was
pointed out to the learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioners, he made submissions on how the
provisions of Section 498A of the IPC are being
abused and how there is a need to check such
improper tendency. He placed reliance on a
decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case

¶39

of Preeti Gupta and another V/s State of Jharkhand

¶40

and another (2010 STPL(LE-Crim) 34150 SC) in
support of his contention.

¶41

5.In my opinion, the question that has

¶42

been raised is whether, under the circumstances
mentioned above, the constitutional jurisdiction

¶43

of this Court should be invoked to interfere in

¶44

the matter on a plea that there is no case for
proceeding against the petitioners. The question
is whether, before the trial court comes to a
conclusion in that regard, the constitutional

¶45

4 Cri.W.P.374.13.odt

¶46

jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners has
emphasised that the jurisdiction conferred on this
Court by the Constitution and the inherent powers
of this Court, as saved by Section 482 of the Code

¶48

of Criminal Procedure, are wide enough, and that,
there would be no bar to invoke such jurisdiction.
There can be no doubt about the proposition that
there is no jurisdictional bar to interfere in the
matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction inspite of
the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy
in favour of a party, which has not been availed
of by her or him. The question, however, is of
propriety.

¶49

The exercise of writ jurisdiction and
invocationoftheinherentpowersis

¶50

discretionary. Availability of an efficacious
statutory remedy in favour of a party, who has
approached the High Court, can be a ground to
refuse to exercise the constitutional jurisdiction

¶51

and inherent powers of the High Court.

¶52

Cri.W.P.374.13.odt

¶53

¶54

6.The issue involved in the present case
is not complex and the contention is basically
relating to the appreciation of material in the
charge sheet and formation of the opinion about

¶55

the sufficiency or otherwise of grounds for
proceeding against the petitioners.

¶56

7.At this stage, in my opinion,

¶57

interference in the writ jurisdiction is totally
uncalled for. (See R.P. Kapor’s case reported in
AIR 1960 SC 866). It is open for the petitioners
to advance the contentions about insufficiency of
material for proceeding against them/framing a
charge against them, before a Magistrate, and it
is obvious that the Magistrate shall take such
contentions into consideration before proceeding
further in the matter.

¶58

8.No case for exercising this Court’s
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶59

India and its inherent powers is made out.

¶60

Cri.W.P.374.13.odt

¶61

¶62

9. The Petition is rejected.

¶63

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶64

¶65

sga/-

Ashwinikumar Bhimashankar Jujgar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwinikumar Bhimashankar Jujgar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishrat Hussain S/O Mohammad Hussain Vs the State of Mah

Sanjay Bhagwan Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Mansoor Shaikh Maddu Vs Zaidabee Shaikh Maddu and Another

Sayara Begum Shaikh Kalim and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ram Gahininath Bodkhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chandrakant Tanhaji Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another