Disposed

Kumar S/O Dattu Dhokale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Nov 2016WP/693/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that under Reeta Nag, the Magistrate may permit further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., but only after a charge-sheet is filed and upon a specific application. The Court directed the parties to file such an application before the Magistrate, who must decide within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The parties are directed to file an application before the Magistrate for further investigation; the Magistrate is directed to decide within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

Kumar S/O Dattu Dhokale Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cwp693.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.693 OF 2016

¶6

Kumar s/o Dattu Dhokale,
Age-53 years, Occu:Business (Goldsmith),
R/o-Lane No.2, Near Jain Mandir Lane,
Dhule, Tq. & Dist-Dhule

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule, Tq. & Dist-Dhule,

¶10

2) The Superintendent of Police, Dhule, Dist-Dhule,

¶11

3) Police Inspector, (Investigating Officer), Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule, Tq. & Dist-Dhule.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

...

¶14

 Mr.R.S. Shinde Advocate h/f. Mr. N.L. Choudhari
 Advocate for Petitioner.

¶15

 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, Additional Public Prosecutor
 for Respondents.

¶16

...

¶17

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶18

 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶19

 DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER 2016

¶20

cwp693.16

¶21

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

.Heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶24

the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶25

2.It appears that present Petitioner, who
is original complainant, filed the complaint
seeking direction under Section 156(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to the concerned police
officer for investigation. The concerned Court
passed the order and directed the concerned police
station in-charge to conduct investigation and
accordingly after completing the investigation,
charge-sheet came to be filed before the 2nd
J.M.F.C. Dhule. The said case was numbered as

¶26

R.C.C. No.784 of 2012. The present Petitioner

¶27

filed an application at Exhibit 19 for re-
investigation of the complaint. The concerned

¶28

Court rejected the application relying upon the
exposition of law in the case of Reeta Nag vs.
State of West Bengal and others, reported in 2010

¶29

cwp693.16
3

¶30

Cri. L.J., 2245, observing that the Court of
J.M.F.C. has no jurisdiction to direct re-

¶31

investigation of the complaint. Being aggrieved by
the said order, this Petition is filed by the
Petitioner.

¶32

3.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

Petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State jointly submits that ends of justice would
be met in case the parties are allowed to file
application before the Court of J.M.F.C. for
further investigation and upon filing such
application, concerned Court may be directed to
take the decision on the said application,
expeditiously.

¶34

4.We have considered the submissions of the

¶35

learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. In the

¶36

case of Reeta Nag vs. State of West Bengal and
others, supra, the Supreme Court while considering

¶37

cwp693.16

¶38

¶39

the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate First
Class observed in Para 19 that once a charge-sheet

¶40

is filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and
either charge is framed or the accused are
discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a
protest petition, take cognizance of the offence
complained of or on the application made by the
InvestigatingAuthoritiespermitfurther

¶41

investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

¶42

5.In that view of the matter, in case the

¶43

prosecution agency and Petitioner files the
application before the Judicial Magistrate within
two weeks from today, we direct the Judicial
Magistrate to take decision on the said
application on its own merits and as expeditiously
as possible, however, within two weeks after
filing of such application, in the light of the
observations made by the Supreme Court in Para 19

¶44

of the Judgment in the case of Reeta Nag vs. State

¶45

of West Bengal and others, supra.

¶46

cwp693.16

¶47

¶48

6.In the light of above, the Writ Petition

¶49

stands disposed of.

¶50

.Parties to act upon authenticated copy of

¶51

this order.

¶52

[K.K. SONAWANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶53

asb/NOV16

Kumar S/O Dattu Dhokale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar S/O Dattu Dhokale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Fakirchand Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagannath S/O Narsing Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheetal Dipak Kasar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vasant Motiram Bhil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maroti Gangaram Wakde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rameshwar S/O Sampatrao Shingare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.