Allowed

Vijay Ramesh Mohite v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jul 2022WP/2083/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a Writ Petition under Article 227, the High Court quashed an order framing charge passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or complying with Section 238 Cr.P.C., and directed the Trial Court to conduct necessary inquiry within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order framing charge set aside; Trial Court directed to afford opportunity of being heard and comply with Sections 238 and 239 Cr.P.C. within three weeks.

Vijay Ramesh Mohite Vs State of Maharashtra — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

spm 1 12-Wp-2083-2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2083 OF 2022

¶5

Vijay Ramesh Mohite

¶6

 …..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra …..Respondent

¶9

Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Hulke, APP for Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 14th JULY, 2022.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

By the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶13

India, the Petitioner has impugned the Order of framing of charge below
Exh-10, dated 30th August, 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Tasgaon.

¶14

2.It is the contention of the Petitioner that, the Police Officer of
Respondent filed charge-sheet on 30th August, 2021 and immediately
thereafter the Trial Court framed charge below Exh-10, without granting an
opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner.

¶15

Mr. Bhujbal, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that,
as a matter of fact even the Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to
file an Application for his discharge. He further submitted that, the
compliance of Section 207 as mandated by Section 238 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) was also not complied with before

¶16

1/2

¶17

spm 2 12-Wp-2083-2022.doc

¶18

framing of charge and copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the Petitioner
after passing of impugned Order.

¶19

3.Perusal of record and in particular Roznama dated 30th August,
2021 maintained by the Trial Court pertaining to the present case, clearly
supports the contention of the Petitioner. As the Petitioner was not afforded
an opportunity of being heard before framing of charge and as it is the legal
necessity as contemplated under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the impugned Order
dated 30th August, 2021 of framing of charge below Exh-10 is set aside.

¶20

4.Trial Court is directed to afford an opportunity to the Petitioner
of being heard before framing of charge. Trial Court is expected to do the
necessary compliance as mandated under the provisions of Cr.P.C. and in
particular Sections 238 and 239 before framing of charge against the
Petitioner.

¶21

This entire exercise be completed within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of present Order.

¶22

5. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

6. All the concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.

¶24

2/2

Vijay Ramesh Mohite v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Ramesh Mohite v. State of Maharashtra

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

Tarik Arman Ali Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maruti Sattu Mapare Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Balwantrao Manikrao Deshmukh and Ors.

Navnit Ramavtar Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naresh Kumar S/O Hiralal Chotelal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shyamkant Bhagoji Marchande (Since Deceased) Thru. Sujata Shyamkant Marchande Vs State of Maharashtra