Disposed

The Principal District and Session Judge Solapur v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Sept 2014REF/1/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the reference of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Solapur under Section 186 CrPC regarding the forum for trial in a murder case involving courts in different States, the High Court held the reference not maintainable as the courts were not subordinate to the same High Court.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial Magistrate, Malshiras to send the charge-sheet and papers in a sealed envelope to the competent Court in Yadgir, Karnataka.

The Principal District and Session Judge… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2-REF-1.2014

¶2

suresh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL
REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014

¶4

The Principal District &
Sessions Judge, Solapur.... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶5

High Court on its own Motion.
Mr. S.K. Shinde, PP with Mr. K.V. Saste,
APP, for the State.

¶6

CORAM: V.M. KANADE &
 P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶7

DATED: SEPTEMBER 02, 2014

¶8

P.C:

¶9

1.In the present case, reference is made
by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

¶10

Solapur under Section 186 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and has requested this
Court to issue appropriate directions.

¶11

2.Brief facts are as under:

¶12

Page 1 of 8

¶13

suresh 2-REF-1.2014

¶14

On 872014 one Devidas Sadashiv

¶15

Kamble lodged missing complaint No.30/2012 with
Akluj Police Station stating therein that his
son, Amar Devidas Kamble, was missing. During
the course of the inquiry, it was revealed that
the said Amar Devidas Kamble was killed by one
Mohasin Badesab Shaikh and others at Village
Thangundi, District Yadgir in the State of
Karnataka.

¶16

3.On 1572012 the Akluj Police Station

¶17

registered an FIR vide C.R. No.0/2012 for

¶18

offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,
147 and 149 of the IPC against Mohasin Badesab
Shaikh and others. On 1672012 the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Solapur (Rural)
forwarded the papers pertaining to C.R.
No.0/2012 through Assistant Police Sub

¶19

Inspector to the Superintendent of Police,
Yadgir, State of Karnataka. However, the

¶20

Page 2 of 8

¶21

suresh 2-REF-1.2014

¶22

Superintendent of Police, Yadgir did not accept
the transfer papers since dead body of Amar
could not be traced as per the scene of offence
panchnama and panchnama of the place of burial.
On 1982012 the Additional Superintendent of
Police, Solapur, directed Police Inspector,
Akluj Police Station to register an offence and
accordingly C.R. No.132/2012 was registered for
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,
147 and 149 of the IPC and investigation was
commenced by P.I. of Akluj Police Station.

¶23

4.On 2382012 custody of the accused

¶24

was taken by Akluj Police Station for further
investigation. Thereafter, chargesheet bearing
No.156 of 2012 was filed in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malshiras
against the remaining accused, since two
accused were absconding, and the same was
registered by the learned Magistrate as RCC

¶25

suresh 2-REF-1.2014

¶26

No.407 of 2012. On 26122013 the matter was

¶27

committed to the Court of Additional Sessions

¶28

Judge, Malshiras. On 31122013 the learned
Additional Sessions Judge came to the
conclusion that the offence did not take place
within his territorial jurisdiction and
returned the chargesheet to the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Malshiras.

¶29

5.Thereafter, the Magistrate returned

¶30

the papers to the concerned police station
which, in turn, sent the papers to District
Court, Yadgir. Since the papers were not sent
by the Magistrate in a sealed envelope, the
District Court refused to accept the said
papers. When this fact came to the notice of
the District and Sessions Judge, he has made
this reference under Section 186 of the Code of

¶31

Criminal Procedure.

Page 4 of 8

suresh

2-REF-1.2014

6.In our view, this reference is not

¶36

maintainable for the following reasons:

¶37

7.Section 186 of the Code of Criminal

¶38

Procedure reads as under:

¶39

“186.High Court to decide, in
case of doubt, district where
inquiry or trial shall take place.
Where two or more Courts have taken
cognizance of the same offence and a
question arises as to which of them
ought to inquire into or try that
offence, the question shall be
decided –

¶40

(a) if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court;

¶41

(b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced,

¶42

and thereupon all other proceedings
in respect of that offence shall be
discontinued.”

¶43

Page 5 of 8

¶44

suresh 2-REF-1.2014

¶45

Perusal of the said section clearly discloses
that the High Court has to decide the District
where inquiry of trial is to take place only
after two or more Courts which are subordinate
to the same High Court take cognizance of the

¶46

same offence.

¶47

8.In the present case, the Court in

¶48

Yadgir is not within the jurisdiction of this
High Court and as such, therefore, the inquiry
cannot be made by this Court. Subclause (b)
provides that if the Courts are not subordinate
to the same High Court, then the Court within
the local limits of whose appellate criminal
jurisdiction the proceedings were commenced
should decide the issue.

¶49

9.In the present case, initially though

¶50

the complaint was lodged at Akluj, it was later

¶51

Page 6 of 8

¶52

suresh 2-REF-1.2014

¶53

on transferred to Yadgir Police Station and as
such, therefore, even under subclause (b),
reference cannot be decided by this Court.

¶54

10.It is no doubt true that the Judicial

¶55

Magistrate, First Class, Yadgir did take

¶56

cognizance of the complaint since chargesheet
was filed in the said Court.

¶57

11.In our view, the correct course of

¶58

action by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

¶59

Malshiras would have been to send the charge
sheet and other relevant papers in a sealed
envelope to the Court of competent jurisdiction
in Yadgir, State of Karnataka, which Court
would then take cognizance after fresh
investigation by the Yadgir Police Station.

¶60

12.We, therefore, direct the Judicial

¶61

Page 7 of 8

¶62

suresh 2-REF-1.2014

¶63

Magistrate, First Class, Malshiras to send the
papers of the crime in question in a sealed
envelope to the Court of competent jurisdiction
in Yadgir, State of Karnataka.

¶64

13.With these observations, the reference
is disposed of.

¶65

Page 8 of 8

The Principal District and Session Judge Solapur v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal District and Session Judge Solapur 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

Shivaji University Teachers Association (Suta) Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Ramesh Amidas Mehta and Ors. Vs the State of Maharahtra and Ors.

Ayodhya Babulal Malu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravin Yashwant Darekar and Ors. Vs Vasantrao Deshmukh and Anr.

The Principal District and Session Judge Solapur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Sadu Parle @ Aba Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.