Dismissed

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

Bombay HC3 Oct 2013WP/380/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad rejected a criminal writ petition challenging a CrPC Section 156(3) investigation order, declining interference as the Magistrate had not yet applied mind to frame charges. The Court directed the Magistrate to permit the petitioners to appear through an advocate for the discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; Magistrate directed to permit appearance through advocate for discharge application instead of insisting on personal presence.

Sayyed Fataulla Hashmi Ahmadulla Hashmi and Ors. Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

15 wp.380.10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 380 OF 2010

¶5

SAYYED FATAULLA HASHMI AHMADULLA HASHMI AND OTHERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Satej S. Jadhav. APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. G.R.Ingole. Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Mr. S.G.Dargad.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 03rd October, 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

. Heard Mr. S.S.Jadhav, the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

¶12

2 The Petitioners approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing investigation into the complaint lodged by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. However, no interim orders were passed by this Court, at any stage during the pendency of the present petition, as a result of which the investigation continued and culminated in filing of the charge-sheet against the Petitioners.

¶13

3 The learned counsel for the Petitioners concedes that, so far, no charge has been framed in the matter by the learned Magistrate. In other words, the learned Magistrate has, so far, not applied his mind to the material

¶14

2 15 wp.380.10

¶15

in the charge-sheet for ascertaining, whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Petitioners, or any of them.

¶16

4 Since the petition is for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that no case is made out against any of the Petitioners, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter, when, so far, the learned Magistrate, who is seized of the matter, has not applied his mind with respect to this aspect of the matter. The Petitioners can very well apply before the learned Magistrate seeking a discharge. It is needless to say that the learned Magistrate shall be bound to consider the contentions raised by the Petitioners and decide he matter in accordance with law and keeping in mind the provisions of Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

5 After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is however, directed that in case the Petitioners file an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate shall not insist of their personal presence and shall permit them to appear through a duly instructed Advocate, till the discharge application would be decided.

¶18

6 Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition is rejected.

¶19

[ ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. ]

¶20

ndm

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Laxman Jagannath Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Aditya Motors, Sonalika Tractors Thr. Its Partners Vs Shaikh Riyaz Shaikh Badshah

Vitthal Dagadu Kshirsagar Vs Mangal Vitthal Kshirsagar and Anr.

Satyabhamabai Laxman Dharme Vs Ramhari Sitaram Therbele and Anr.

Maruti Jagannath Karad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Madhav Yadavrao Dhotre Vs Saraswatibai Babulal Pandit and Ors.