The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed an application seeking quashing of a charge-sheet. The Court rejected the plea noting a prior speaking order had already refused to quash the crime on merits without material change in circumstances.
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.
926 CRAPP 303 23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
926 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2023
PADMESH JAYANARAYAN LADDHA AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Aute Janabai S.
APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. V.S. Badakh
CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL &
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATE: 18.04.2023
PER COURT :
Heard the learned advocate for the applicants.
2.The applicants are seeking quashment of Crime No. 331/2019,
registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3, 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3.It is necessary to note that already the applicants had once attempted
for quashment of crime by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 90/2020 which
was dismissed by this Court by a speaking order dated 14.09.2022. Without
disclosing this fact and making a statement that no similar relief has been
sought, this application has been filed.
4.Learned advocate for the applicants submits that she has not been
instructed about rejection of the earlier writ petition but submits that earlier
the applicants were seeking quashment of crime and now they are seeking
quashment of charge-sheet. The statements of the learned advocate are self
1/2
926 CRAPP 303 23.odt
contradictory. If she has not been informed about the earlier decision, one
wonders how she comes to know that it was a writ petition for quashment of
crime.
5. Be that as it may, by an elaborate order this Court has already refused to quash the crime on merits. Filing of the charge-sheet is only a logical and legal corollary once crime is registered. There is no material change in the circumstances since rejection of earlier petition except the fact that a chargesheet has been filed.
6. The Criminal Application is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent application for quashing of charge-sheet entitles the applicants to a fresh consideration after a prior speaking order rejected quashing of the crime on merits.
Whether filing of a charge-sheet constitutes a material change in circumstances warranting quashing of the criminal proceeding subsequent to a rejection of quashing of the crime.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
PADMESH JAYANARAYAN LADDHA AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
MANGESH S. PATIL
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court