Dismissed

Anantrao Narayan Thopate v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2022WP/847/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Sessions Judge's order rejecting a discharge application. The High Court perused the evidence and upheld the lower court's view that sufficient material existed to proceed. The petition was dismissed with ad-interim relief continued.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue for four weeks.

Anantrao Narayan Thopate Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

30-crwp847-2022.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.847 OF 2022

¶5

Anantrao Narayan Thopate…Petitioner
V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.…Respondents

¶7

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2022.11.23 11:02:37 +0530

¶8

Mr.Saurabh Butala with Mr. Arya Sapre and Mr.
Harshad Bhadbhade for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for respondent no.1/State.

¶10

Ms. Smita Gaidhani for respondent no.2.
Mr. N.H. Khamgad, API, Rajgad Police Station, is
present.

¶11

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED:NOVEMBER 22, 2022

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 16th
December 2019 rejecting the application for discharge the
petitioner for offence under sections 354, 323, 143, 147, 504 read
with 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶15

2.According to the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident
occurred at 6.30 p.m. on 17th June 2015. The petitioner came out
of his car along with his driver and asked the complainant as to
why they were present there. He abused the complainant. He held
her hand and offended her modesty by physically holding her.

¶16

¶17

30-crwp847-2022.doc

¶18

Other witnesses reiterated the statement made by the complainant
but as regards the actual incident, other witnesses stated that the
accused held hand of the complainant. The investigating agency
after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet.

¶19

3.The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for discharge.
The learned Magistrate by order dated 16th December 2019
rejected the application for discharge against which the petitioner
filed Criminal Revision Application No.100 of 2020 before the
learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge by the
impugned order dated 8th March 2022 rejected the criminal
revision application of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has
filed present writ petition challenging order of the revisional
Court.

¶20

4.The learned revisional Judge observed that the occurrence of
incident has not been disputed by the accused nor he has denied
his presence at the spot of incident. Though it is admitted that
there is civil dispute between the parties, the learned Sessions
Judge recorded a finding that there is sufficient material to
support the case of the prosecution about occurrence of incident
and the presence of the accused at the spot of incident. It is held
that absence of intention on the part of the accused to outrage
modesty of the complainant is not the sole decisive factor to say
that the offence is not committed.

¶21

5.With the assistance of the learned advocate for the petitioner,
I have perused the statement of the complainant and other
witnesses. The complainant has specifically stated that the

¶22

¶23

30-crwp847-2022.doc

¶24

petitioner assaulted her with stick and abused her. It is also stated
that he held her hand and offended her modesty by physically
holding her. The said statement of the complainant has been
supported by other witnesses, save and except the portion of
physically holding her physically.

¶25

6. The question of inconsistency in the statements of witnesses need not be considered at this stage. It is always open for the petitioner to raise all such grounds available to him in law in the trial.

¶26

7. On consideration of the material on record, the Court below has rightly concluded that there is no ground to proceed against the accused. There is no error of jurisdiction nor the impugned orders are perverse.

¶27

8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶28

9. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue for a period of four (4) weeks from today.

¶29

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶30

Anantrao Narayan Thopate v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anantrao Narayan Thopate v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Kaveshwar Manoharrao Adhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shabana Saudagar W/O. Raju Alias Abdul Saudagar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Manish Dattatraya Salvi and Ors. Vs Bhakti Manish Salvi and Anr.

Shivineri Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs Abhinandan Babasaheb Khot and Anr.

Manoj Lachhmandas Jagwani Vs Naresh Manoharlal Vazirani and Anr.

Juhi Gaurav Luthra Vs Gaurav Raj Luthra and Ors.