Dismissed

Munna Khan Rustum Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC4 Oct 2013WP/377/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application in a Sessions case involving murder, the High Court found sufficient material in the FIR and witness statements to proceed against the petitioner. The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge's order was not erroneous and did not call for interference, leading to the rejection of the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Munna Khan Rustum Khan Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Cri.W.P.377.13.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 377 OF 2013

¶5

Munna Khan S/o Pustum Khan Age : 39 years, Occ : Business, R/o Rameshwar Plot, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Nanalpeth, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.

¶9

Jafar Khan S/o Kalandarkhan Age : 34 years, Occ : Business, R/o Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Dhar Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.

¶10

..RESPONDENTS

¶11

... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Shinde h/f Mr. V.P. Latange APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. P.N. Muley Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Halkude S.S.

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: October 04, 2013

¶13

ORAL ORDER :-

¶14

Heard Mr. B.S. Shinde h/f Mr. V.P. Latange, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. S.S. Halkude, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, who is the first informant. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State.

¶15

Cri.W.P.377.13.odt

¶16

¶17

The petitioner is one of the seven accused – accused no.3 – in Sessions Case No. 110/2012 pending before the Sessions Court at Parbhani. The case is in respect of offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 120-B of IPC, Section 452 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner made an application for discharge contending that there was no material in the charge-sheet for proceeding against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, Incharge of the matter, rejected the application for discharge holding that there is sufficient material in the charge-sheet against the petitioner for framing of charge.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the said order rejecting the application for discharge, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶19

It is contended before me that the first information report and statements of the witnesses recorded under the provisions of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code do not make out any case for proceeding against the petitioner.

¶20

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have glanced through a copy of the charge-sheet that is annexed to the Petition.

¶21

I find that the presence of the petitioner at the time of assault on the deceased is indicated by the first information report and statements of the other witnesses recorded in the course of investigation. I also find that that an active role during the incident has been attributed to the petitioner.

¶22

3 Cri.W.P.377.13.odt

¶23

The allegation, inter alia , is that the petitioner and the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly, and that, the murder came to be committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly.

¶24

It can not be said that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the matter carefully and has passed a proper order. Consequently, the question of interfering therewith does not arise.

¶25

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made certain observations against the petitioner, which indicate that the learned Judge has already concluded about the applicant’s involvement in the alleged offence. I find no substance in this contention. The said observations are made by the learned Judge in the context of the issue raised by the petitioner himself :- i.e. there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against him . What the learned Judge has observed is merely that there is sufficient ground for proceeding . The apprehension that in view of this observation, the petitioner would be convicted in the trial, is absurd.

¶26

8. The Petition is rejected.

¶27

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶28

¶29

sga/-

Munna Khan Rustum Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Munna Khan Rustum Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyabhamabai Laxman Dharme Vs Ramhari Sitaram Therbele and Anr.

Sayyed Fataulla Hashmi Ahmadulla Hashmi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maruti Jagannath Karad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Baban @ Rohidas Tukaram Zambre and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramhari Balasaheb Ghadge and Anr. Vs Ravindra Tanaji Ghadge and Ors.

Saleem Shansher Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.