Disposed

Umaima K. Chitalwala v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jul 2013WP/910/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order addressed a Criminal Writ Petition filed by an accused seeking discharge. The High Court lifted the stay on the discharge order to enable the trial court to frame charges, directing the Sessions Judge not to be precluded from hearing parties and to proceed under Sections 227 and 228 of CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the trial court was directed to frame charges after hearing the petitioner and APP, not being precluded from hearing other parties if necessary.

Umaima K. Chitalwala Vs the State of Maharashtra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

901-WP-910-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.910 OF 2012

¶5

MRS.UMAIMA K. CHITALWALA )...PETITIONER

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr.Prashant Sawardekar i/b. Mr.Prakash Naik Advocate for Petitioner.

¶9

Mrs.G.P.Mulekar APP for the State.

¶10

Mr.C.K.Talekar a/w. Mr.Mritanjay Baravi i/b. L.J.Law Advocate for the Complainant.

¶11

CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶12

DATE : 19^th JULY, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1 Mr.Prashant Sawardekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, the learned APP for the State.

¶15

2 The petitioner is one of the accused in Sessions Case No. 193 of 2009, pending before the Sessions court at Sewri, Mumbai. Initially, there were five accused in the case, but three of them have been discharged by the Sessions court. The case of the fourth one, i.e. the accused no.5, has been separated, and he is being prosecuted in the court of the Magistrate, in respect of an offence triable by a Magistrate. Thus, the present petitioner is the only accused, who is facing the said prosecution vide Sessions case No.193 of 2009.

¶16

avk 1/4

¶17

901-WP-910-2012

¶18

3 The accusation levelled in the charge-sheet is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 304 (Part II), 337, 228 read with Section 109, 174, 175,177, 182, 186, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof.

¶19

4 The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a shop situated on the ground floor of the building known as Ali Mohammed Mansion, situate at Maulana Shaukat Ali Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-7. The said building collapsed on 23.6.2007. Two persons died as a result of the fall of the building, and two more were injured. The substance of the allegation against the petitioner is that, she had failed to take necessary and legal steps, which failure resulted in the collapse of the said building, and that, therefore, she is responsible for the deaths that have been caused by such collapse.

¶20

5 According to the petitioner, she is not at all responsible for the collapse of the building, and that, there is no question of her being guilty of any offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC.

¶21

6 The petitioner made an application for discharge but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was then seized of the case, rejected the same by an order dated 23.11.2011. The learned Judge, however, as aforesaid, discharged two other accused, namely, accused no.3 – Sayyed Naseem Ahamed, and accused no.4 – Sayyed Rashid Ali.

¶22

avk 2/4

¶23

901-WP-910-2012

¶24

7 It is, thereafter, that the applicant has approached this court by filing the present writ petition.

¶25

8 It appears that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the matter appeared before the Sessions court on 8.5.2013. The learned Judge, who was presiding over the court on that date, noticed the said order dated 23.11.2011 rejecting the discharge application, as passed by his predecessor. The learned Judge, in his order dealt with the facts of the case and expressed some difficulty in the matter of framing of Charge. He observed, for reasons recorded by him in his order dated 8.5.2013, that when the matter was pending before this court, it was not desirable to discharge the accused.

¶26

9 I have glanced through the order dated 23.11.2011, passed by Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, K.D.Boche, rejecting the application for discharge filed by the applicant. I have also gone through the order dated 8.5.2013, which has been passed by Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, K.R.Itolikar.

¶27

10 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP, I am of the opinion, that, since, though the application for discharge was rejected, no Charge was framed, it would be open for the court to consider the facts of the case and decide, whether , and if so, what charge should be framed in the case. Apparently, the Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge applied his mind to the various aspects of the matter involved, but did not take a decision because of the

¶28

avk 3/4

¶29

901-WP-910-2012

¶30

pendency of the present writ petition before this court. In my opinion, it would be sufficient if it is clarified that the learned Judge shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, irrespective of the fact of the rejection of the previous discharge application filed by the applicant.

¶31

11 In view of this, the present writ petition is being disposed of as follows :

¶32

i) The learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge shall consider the question of framing of charge, after hearing the petitioner, and the learned APP – in-charge of the matter, and keeping in mind the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶33

ii) The learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge shall not be precluded from hearing any other party / parties with regard to the question of charge / discharge, if it appears necessary, and / or proper to him, to hear such party / parties.

¶34

12 The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

13 The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 31.7.2013.

¶36

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)

¶37

avk 4/4

Umaima K. Chitalwala v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umaima K. Chitalwala v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Firoz Nazmul Hasan Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Merei Khan Ghodaji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Daulatsahab @ Daulu Imamsahab Bagwan Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S True Finess (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bangur Nagar Police Station and Ors.

Prakash Narayan Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra