Dismissed

Sk. Sujauddin Sk. Khaliluddin v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC5 Jul 2019CP/13/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought contempt against the State for filing a charge-sheet allegedly against the Court's order of 04.08.2015. The Court observed that the charge-sheet was actually submitted on 31.07.2015. Being merit-less, the petition was dismissed at the threshold.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition is dismissed at the threshold.

Sk. Sujauddin Sk. Khaliluddin Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

8-CP.13-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.13 OF 2016

¶4

IN CRI. WP/856/2015

¶5

SK. SUJAUDDIN SK. KHALILUDDIN

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. R.R.Sancheti, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. G.L.Deshpande, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4

¶9

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE

¶10

 AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
 DATE : JULY 05, 2019

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard Mr.Sancheti, learned Counsel for the

¶13

petitioner and Mrs.Deshpande, learned AGP for
respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶14

2.The grievance of the petitioner is of non-

¶15

compliance of the order of this Court dated 04.08.2015
passed in Writ Petition No.4017 of 2015.

¶16

3.Perusal of the order dated 04.08.2015 would
reveal that at the request of learned AGP, the Writ

¶17

2 8-CP.13-16

¶18

Petition was adjourned to 19.08.2015. It was further
directed by this Court that in case charge-sheet is
not filed, it shall not be filed till then.

¶19

4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the
basis of a copy placed on record at Annexure “B”,
submits that in spite of the order of this Court,
dated 04.08.2015, the charge-sheet has been filed on
10.08.2015. As such, according to him, there is non-

¶20

compliance of the order of this Court and
consequently, respondent no.5, who has filed the
charge-sheet in defiance of the order of this Court,
may be punished for committing contempt of the Court.

¶21

5.On perusal of the very document i.e.

¶22

annexure “B” i.e. copy of the charge-sheet, we are of

¶23

the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner is
based on erroneous reading of the said document and
under misconception of the facts. Perusal of copy of
the charge-sheet clearly shows that the charge-sheet

¶24

was submitted to the Court on 31.07.2015 by

¶25

3 8-CP.13-16

¶26

respondent no.5, who is Investigating Officer in the
crime. The name of the Officer in-charge is referred
to as B.S.Gawde, who was the signatory, in-charge and
Investigating Officer i.e. respondent no.5. Perusal
of copy of the charge-sheet further shows that
against column no.2, reference is made to Final
Report Number and date of forwarding the final report
i.e. charge-sheet. Here also, the date is mentioned
as 31.07.2015. Further, there is a handwritten
endorsement as R.C.C. No.286/2015 dated 10.08.2015.
On the basis of this hand-written endorsement, the
petitioner is before this Court with the above
referred grievance.

¶27

6.Considering the fact situation that
respondent no.5 had forwarded the charge-sheet on
31.07.2015 with his endorsement on the charge-sheet,
which reiterates the date of forwarding as
31.07.2015, we are of the opinion that the Contempt
Petitioner has failed to make out a case of willful
disobedience of the order of this Court. At the cost

¶28

of repetition, we state that the charge-sheet is
filed on 31.07.2015 i.e. prior to the order of this
Court dated 04.08.2015.

¶29

7.In view of the facts stated above, we are
unable to persuade ourselves to entertain this
Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition, as such,
being merit-less deserves to be dismissed at the
threshold. The Contempt Petition is accordingly
dismissed.

¶30

kbp

Sk. Sujauddin Sk. Khaliluddin v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Sujauddin Sk. Khaliluddin v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimalbai Ashokchand Kankariya Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Neeta Prabhu Dhimdhime Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Sakhubai Piraji Madale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhanraj Ramrao Jadhav and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mauli Sevabhavi Sanstha, Raimoha Thr President Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chandulal Mohanlal Biyani Vs the Chief Enginer Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. and Others