Dismissed

Dhirajlal Jamnadas Shanghvi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2019APL/405/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court rejected the applicant's prayer to summon a witness not mentioned in the complaint or deposition, citing the belated nature of the application under section 313 CrPC, and also rejected the prayer for stay of the order to avoid delaying the trial.

What did the court decide?

The application to summon the witness and the prayer for stay were rejected.

Dhirajlal Jamnadas Shanghvi Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

14-apl-405-2018.doc

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 405 OF 2018

¶5

Mr.Dhirajlal Jamnadas Shanghvi

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Abhay D. Parab for the Applicant. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr.T.Usman i/b. Mr.S.R.Gaud for Respondent No.3. Mr.Kapil P. Shah a/w. Mr.Jay Varia for Respondent No.4.

¶11

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 16^th SEPTEMBER 2019

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the

¶14

name of the witness viz. Ajitkumar Singh Kesliwal is very much cited in the list of witnesses submitted by the prosecution agency. He further submits that the said witness is necessary to be examined, therefore, an application was filed by the applicant through prosecution agency. However, the said application was rejected on the ground that the name of the said witness is not mentioned in the chargesheet. He further submits that the applicant is a tenant and, therefore, the applicant wants that his deposition may be recorded before the Court so as to strengthen the case of the applicant. The

Trupti

14-apl-405-2018.doc

2/4

applicant is a tenant of the said land, which has been encroached by contesting respondents. Learned Counsel invites attention of this Court to the grounds taken in the application along with annexures thereto and at the cost of repetition, he prays that the application may be allowed.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondents invites attention of this Court to the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order, and submits that neither in the first complaint, which was filed by the applicant, nor in his deposition the applicant has referred the name of the said proposed witness viz. Ajitkumar Singh Kesliwal and, therefore, belated attempt of the applicant to issue summons to the said witness at the stage of recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rightly turned down by the trial Court. He further submits that the applicant has already initiated civil proceedings before the Civil Court. Therefore, relying upon the reasons assigned in the impugned order, learned Counsel submits that the application may be rejected.

Trupti

14-apl-405-2018.doc

3/4

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondents. Perused the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order. The learned Magistrate has recorded that neither in the first complaint, which was filed by the applicant, nor in his deposition before the Court, he has made a reference in respect of the said witness viz. Ajitkumar Singh Kesliwal. The learned Magistrate has also observed that the applicant by filing an application for examination of proposed witness, has tried to fill up the lacuna, which is not permissible. The said application is filed at the stage of recording the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not in dispute.

¶24

Upon careful perusal of the first complaint filed by the applicant, it appears that the name of the said witness - Ajitkumar Singh Kesliwal is not mentioned. The prayer of the applicant to summon the aforementioned witness is at belated stage, and if granted would protract the trial. In view of the reasons assigned in the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application and the same stands rejected.

Trupti

14-apl-405-2018.doc

4/4

At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant prays for stay to the implementation of the order. However, the said prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents since the matter is pending for considerable period before the trial Court. Since the application was filed by the applicant at the stage of recording the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granting stay to the proceedings would further delay the disposal of the case, hence this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of the applicant and to delay the further proceedings before the trial Court. Such prayer is rejected.

¶29

(S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶30

Trupti

Dhirajlal Jamnadas Shanghvi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirajlal Jamnadas Shanghvi v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Anita Dasharath Dolare Vs Dasharath Mahadev Dolare and Anr.

Anita Dashrath Dolare Vs Dashrath Mahadev Dolare and Anr.

Kulwinder Singh Gurudev Singh Bansal Vs Jeevanjyot Kaur Bansal and Anr.

Karthikeyan Palmanickam Vs Meenakshi Karthikeyan

Javed Khatun Amir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinodkumar S/O. Ganeshbhai Kevadiya Vs the State of Maharashtra