The High Court held that it was not inclined to scrutinize the entire prosecution evidence under Section 482 CrPC to adjudicate the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. or charge-sheet, relying on the Supreme Court's view that such an exercise is premature at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1192.16appln
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1192 OF 2016
DEVIDAS S/O SUKHDEO GHATE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ANOTHER
Advocate for applicants : Mr.S.R. Dheple
APP for Respondent/State:Mr.S.B. Pulkundwar
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. Dated: January 12, 2017
The learned counsel appearing for the
applicants fairly submits that, the
charge is already framed by the trial
Court.
2.The Supreme Court in the case of
State of Maharashra V/s Salman Salim Khan
and another1in para 12 held thus;
“We are of the opinion that though it
is open to a High Court entertaining
a petition under Section 482 of the
1 AIR 2004 SC 1189
1192.16appln
2
Code to quash charges framed by the
trial Court, same cannot be done by
weighingthecorrectnessor
sufficiency of evidence. In a case
praying for quashing of the charge,
the principle to be adopted by the
High Court should be that if the
entire evidence produced by the
prosecution is to be believed, would
it constitute an offence or not. The
truthfulness, the sufficiency and
acceptabilityofthematerial
produced at the time of framing of
charge can be done only at the stage
of trial. By relying upon the
decisions of the Apex Court most of
which were with reference to appeals
arising out of convictions, we think
the High Court was not justified in
this case in giving a finding as to
the non-existence of material to
frame a charge for an offence
punishable under Section 304, Part,
II, IPC, therefore, so far as the
finding given by the High Court is
concerned, we are satisfied that it
is too premature a finding and ought
not to have been given at this stage.
At the same time we are also in
agreement with the arguments of
1192.16appln
3
learned counsel for the respondents
that even the Sessions Court ought
not to have expressed its views in
such certain terms which indicates
that the Sessions Court had taken a
final decision in regard to the
material to establish a charge
punishable under Section 304, Part
II, IPC.”
3.In that view of the matter, in the
facts of the present case, we are not
inclined to undertake an exercise of
scrutinizing entire evidence collected by
the prosecution by invoking jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and to adjudicate the prayer of
the applicants for quashing F.I.R./
charge-sheet. Hence the application
stands disposed of.
(K.K. SONAWANE, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J)
sga/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should scrutinize the entire prosecution evidence to adjudicate the prayer for quashing the F.I.R./charge-sheet under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the High Court was justified in framing a finding on the non-existence of material to frame a charge under Section 304 Part II IPC at the pre-trial stage.
Whether this application for quashing of the charge should be dismissed as the matter requires adjudication at the stage of trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra V/s Salman Salim Khan and anotherRelied on¶13
AIR 2004 SC 1189 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Devidas S/o Sukhdeo Ghate and Others
The State of Maharashtra and Another
S.S. Shinde
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court