Agastikumar S/O Ranjitsing Patle v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Gondia

Bombay HC7 May 2014WP/146/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, disposed of a criminal writ petition where the petitioner challenged the Magistrate's order refusing to direct investigation against two specific accused. The court held Section 156(3) CrPC is for investigating offences, not specific persons, allowing police to add accused later.

What the court decided

AI extract

Agastikumar S/O Ranjitsing Patle Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Gondia — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 wp146.14.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.146 OF 2014

¶4

(AGASTIKUMAR RANJITSINGH PATLE...VS..STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS GONDIA)

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - Mr.R.M.Pande, Advocate for Petitioner

¶7

Ms Tajwar Khan, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : MAY 07, 2014.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

Perused the impugned order passed by the Magistrate as well as order passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting revision application.

¶11

The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate to the extent that the Magistrate had directed investigation against accused Nos. 1 and 2 only in Criminal Case No.176/2013 and had refused to direct investigation against accused Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner is complainant and had filed complaint before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned order has been passed below the said complaint. As already stated, the petitioner is aggrieved by refusal on the part of the Magistrate to issue directions for investigation of the case against accused Nos. 3 and 4. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that if the first information report is registered against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and during the course of investigation police find that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were also involved in the alleged offence, nothing prevents the police to file chargesheet against all the accused i.e. accused Nos. 1 to 4. The order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code is for

¶12

2 wp146.14.odt

¶13

investigation of a cognizable offence and not for investigation against a particular person. The investigation is within the domain of police and police are always at liberty to add accused to the first information report forwarded to the police for investigation by the Magistrate.

¶14

In my opinion, no further orders are required in the present writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶15

JUDGE

¶16

RRaut..

Agastikumar S/O Ranjitsing Patle v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Gondia

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Agastikumar S/O Ranjitsing Patle v. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. P.S. Gondia

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.D. Sortex (a Registered Partnership Firm) Thr. Its Manager Ritesh K Agrawal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Police Station Officer

Dr. Vijay S/O Radhakishan Varma Vs Ekta Aabhushan, Proprietor Rajesh Ramchandra Atlani

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. District Civil Surgeon General Hospital, Wardha Vs Dr. Swati Rajesh Gandhi

Rameshwar S/O Jagannath Khandelwal, Managing Partner of M/S Rawat Trading Vs Ku. Pratibha Deshmukh, Prop. Pratik Traders

Motilal S/O Chetan Mazi (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the P.S.O. P.S. Salekasa, Gondia

Deepak S/O Nilkanth Sikka (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Salekasa Police Station, Gondia