Dismissed

Vaishali W.O. Arun More Maiden Name Vaishali Balasaheb Kadam v. Arun S/O. Kashinath More and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jan 2023WP/430/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Writ Petition No. 430 of 2020, the High Court of Bombay at the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction disposed of a challenge to an order refusing to direct further investigation. The Court relied on a Supreme Court precedent to hold that once trial commenced with charge framing, further intervention on this ground would be of little utility.

What did the court decide?

null

Vaishali W.O. Arun More Maiden Name… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

23-WP-430-2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2020

¶4

Vaishali W.o. Arun More Maiden Name Vaishali Balasaheb Kadam ...Petitioner Versus

¶5

Arun S-o. Kashinath More And Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Digitally signed KAWRE by KAWRE KIRAN KIRAN KALYANDate: KALYAN 2023.01.10 14:16:21 +0530

¶7

Ms. Samruddhi Iyer a/w Mr. Umesh Iyer a/w Mr. Danish Kharzade, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J. DATE : 4^th JANUARY, 2023.

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 15^th April,

¶12

2019 passed on the application Exhibit-1 in Criminal Application No.66 of 2017. The Petitioner herein had lodged the First Information Report on 29^th April, 2015. The crime pursuant thereto was registered and charge-sheet came to be filed for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 354, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner/Informant moved the application to the Court of Learned Magistrate, Khalapur, in 2017 seeking direction to the Investigation Officer to make further investigation in view of Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶13

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner would submit that the crime scene panchanama was not drawn, various discrepancies

1 of 2

Kiran Kawre

23-WP-430-2020.doc

were crept in. The FIR and the statements of the witnesses made out offences punishable under Sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Prevention of Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013, etc.

¶18

Learned APP, on the other hand, informs that trial has commenced and charge has been framed.

¶19

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr. Since trial has commenced by framing of the charge, it appears that the Petitioner has slept over his right meaning thereby he did not move this Petition at the earliest. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the order impugned herein. Needless to mention if during evidence of the witnesses some other offence is found to have prima facie been committed, the Court concerned to do well to exercise the powers to frame appropriate charge in that regard.

¶20

Petition stands disposed of.

¶21

2 of 2

¶22

Kiran Kawre

Vaishali W.O. Arun More Maiden Name Vaishali Balasaheb Kadam v. Arun S/O. Kashinath More and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishali W.O. Arun More Maiden Name Vaishali Balasaheb Kadam v. Arun S/O. Kashinath More and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harmeetsingh Surindersingh Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harmeetsingh Surindersingh Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Praful v Pethad and Anr. Vs Syed Haved Munir Hasmi and Anr.

Sheetal Tejwani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinay Kumar Yadav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashabai Arun Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.