Allowed

Janardan Bhujangrao Garje v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2016APPP/348/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed an application for amendment to a Criminal Application under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that since a substantive challenge to the First Information Report was already made in the main application, the proposed amendment should be permitted, and the delay would not act as a bar.

What did the court decide?

Amendment to Criminal Application No. 448 of 2015 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) to be carried out within three weeks.

Janardan Bhujangrao Garje Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Yadav V.G.

¶2

32.appp.348.16

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 348 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 448 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 255 OF 2015

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders

¶7

Mr. Amey Deshpande for Applicant. Dr.F.R.Sheikh, APP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Jagannathprasad Rajaram Shoke, Respondent No.2 in person.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2016.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

¶11

This is an application for amendment of Criminal Application No. 448 of 2015 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that on the basis of order dated 23^rd June, 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan, CR No. I-393/2009 had been registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan. He pointed out that there is a

Yadav V.G.

32.appp.348.16

substantive challenge to the said First Information Report in the main application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that though a copy of order is annexed to the main application, the said order is not formally challenged. The respondent no.2 opposes the application by pointing out that there is a gross delay.

¶16

We find that, First Information Report registered on the basis of the order dated 23^rd June, 2009 is already challenged in the main application as seen from the prayer clause (A). In the circumstances, the amendment deserves to be permitted, as delay will not come in the way of the applicant.

¶17

Accordingly, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A).

¶18

Amendment to be carried out within three weeks from the date on which this order is uploaded. Copies of the amended application be served on the respondent no. 2 as well as on the Public Prosecutor.

¶19

Place Criminal Application No. 448 of 2015 on board under the caption of “admission” on 15^th October, 2016.

¶20

(A.A.SAYED,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)

Janardan Bhujangrao Garje v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardan Bhujangrao Garje v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Mrs. Kavita Subhash Navande and Anr. Vs Stae of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bharatbhushan Chandulal Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mayank Jagsibhai Jagani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Narayan Kalu Kedari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Balasaheb Eknath Harpale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Collector of Pune and Ors. Vs Sharad Pandurang Shete