Dismissed

Jal Rustom Aria v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2013WP/861/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking additional investigation and summoning of non-accused persons. The Court held that the trial court's clarification that it could exercise powers under CrPC sections 319 and 216 was sufficient, rendering writ interference unnecessary.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jal Rustom Aria Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

913.wp.861.13.doc

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 861 OF 2013

¶5

Jal Rustom Aria. ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. ....Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. A. M. Chimalkar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G. S. PATEL, J.J.

¶9

DATED : SEPTEMBER 6, 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

We have heard Mr. Chimalkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶12

On the earlier occasion also we heard him at length and today as well. On the earlier occasion, we had requested the learned APP to take instructions as to whether the Petitioners grievance has been redressed, firstly, insofar as referring to and annexing the copy of the injury certificate to the charge-sheet. About this first grievance, the learned APP was fair enough to produce the charge-sheet before us and we find that not only the Discharge Certificate from the Cumbala Hill Hospital but, even other materials relating to the injuries inflicted have been

1 of 4

913.wp.861.13.doc

Shephali

annexed. This completely redresses the first grievance of the Petitioner.

¶17

Then the Petitioner urges that he had named about five persons and stating to be involved in the act or incident of the relevant date. The Police have not arraigned every one of them as an accused or some of them at least. Though he has made an application requesting to carry out additional/further investigation by invoking Section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate on 22nd August 2011. On 3rd July 2012, Criminal Revision Application No.1181 of 2011 challenging that order was also dismissed.

¶18

The argument is that both Courts have failed to note that if the Petitioner says anything about the role of these persons and for the first time in the Court during the course of evidence, no cognizance will be taken of his grievance and the Court may not exercise its powers to arraign them as an accused.

¶19

We do not read both orders of the Competent Courts as proceeding on these lines. In fact, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge has clarified that it is open for the Petitioner to

2 of 4

913.wp.861.13.doc

Shephali

point out the details of the incident and also pin point the role of not only those who have been arraigned as an accused but, all those who have not been so arraigned. Upon such material being pointed out and such statement being given, it would be open for the learned Magistrate to exercise his powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and implead such other persons to answer the charge.

¶24

This is an adequate clarification and we cannot today indulge in any guess work and when the trial is pending, it would not be proper to interfere with it on the spacious pleas of the Petitioner. We have no doubt that the law has ample remedies for the Petitioner, equally there are enough powers conferred in the Court below to summon those who have not been named in the charge-sheet as an accused and even direct the police to take further steps as permitted in law. All contentions in relation thereto are kept open by the Court below and, equally, our order passed today. We do not find that there is any necessity to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the above clarification being given. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶25

Needless to clarify that the learned Magistrate who is

3 of 4

913.wp.861.13.doc

Shephali

trying the case is also free to exercise his powers under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and if the materials are produced, he can always alter the charge as well. All contentions in relation thereto are kept open.

¶30

(G. S. PATEL, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶31

4 of 4

Jal Rustom Aria v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jal Rustom Aria v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Javed Mobin Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Vithal Patil Vs Purushottam Karad and Anr.

Sandip Ananda Mahalungkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Selvva Mariappa Devendra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manoj S/O. Mohan Mirchandani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Acp Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev Vs City Civil Court (Senior Level) Islampur and Ors.