Allowed

Suresh Bhiva Kawalkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Nov 2014APL/409/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal of Criminal Application No. 409 of 2014. The State admitted inadvertent failure to file documents with the charge-sheet and proposed filing them as a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173 CrPC, which satisfied the Magistrate's previous objection.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the Criminal Application.

Suresh Bhiva Kawalkar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Tilak 1/2 (1)APL-409-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.409 of 2014

¶5

Suresh Bhiva Kawalkar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Prakash M. Chalke, Advocate for the applicant. Ms.S.S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent State.

¶7

--- CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 18^th NOVEMBER 2014. ---

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1 Heard Mr.Chalke, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Ms.Kaushik, learned APP for the State.

¶10

2 Pursuant to the order passed on 7^th November 2014, the learned APP has obtained instructions from the Investigating Agency which are to the effect that the documents in question were inadvertently not filed along with the charge-sheet. It is now submitted that these documents would be filed in the Court as and by way of supplementary charge-sheet i.e. a further report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶11

3 It appears from the impugned order that one of the reasons that weighed with the learned Magistrate in rejecting the prayer to take the documents on record was that 'those documents

¶12

Tilak 2/2 (1)APL-409-14

¶13

would be produced without anybody's statement in that behalf, and without any investigation relevant in that context'.

¶14

4 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that actually the supplementary statement of the applicant had been recorded, and the documents that are intended to be produced now, were mentioned in the said supplementary statement. According to the learned APP, the documents were not produced along with the charge-sheet due to sheer inadvertence.

¶15

5 Since the Investigating Agency now intends to file these documents as and by way of supplementary charge-sheet, and since from the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate cannot have and would not have any objection to take the documents on record in that manner, the learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the application.

¶16

5 Application is allowed to be withdrawn, and stands dismissed as such, with the aforesaid observations.

¶17

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)

Suresh Bhiva Kawalkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Bhiva Kawalkar 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

The Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Pratham Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Prakash Babu Shitap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vanita Sudhir Pathare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunny Sanjay Ahiwale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Priyesh Bheda I.R.S. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sangram Dattatraya Ghorpade Vs Meena Sangram Ghorpade Anda N