Partly allowed

Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Mar 2023WP/975/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Sessions Court order dismissing a criminal revision application because the former failed to identify specific material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence, ordering a remand for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned revisional order quashed; proceedings remanded to Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur for decision afresh in accordance with law.

Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

13-wp975-2023.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.975 OF 2023

¶5

Digitally signed byATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2023.03.23 18:04:45 +0530

¶6

Swararaj Alias Raj Shrikant Thacheray… Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra… Respondent

¶7

Mr. Rajendra Shirodkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Archit Sakhalkar & Mr. Nihar Ghag for the petitioner.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶9

DATED:MARCH 23, 2023

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1.The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 3rd
February 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur
dismissing revision application arising out of application for
discharge filed before the learned Magistrate for offences
punishable under sections 143, 109, 117 of Indian Penal Code,
1860, section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and
section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 vide C.R. No.40 of
2008.

¶12

2.The petitioner filed discharge application mainly on the
ground that on the date of alleged incident, i.e. 21st October 2008,
he was arrested from Ratnagiri in C.R. No.264 of 2008. He was
produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra,

¶13

¶14

13-wp975-2023.doc

¶15

Mumbai and was released on bail. According to him, there is no
evidence to show that he had not committed alleged crime.

¶16

3.The Trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner filed criminal revision application before the
Sessions Judge. The Sessions Court, mainly based on reasons in
paragraph 10, dismissed the criminal revision application. The
Sessions Judge has observed that prima facie there is material on
record to show involvement of the petitioner in the alleged
offence. It is observed that there are specific allegations and
material on record is sufficient to connect petitioner with the crime
alleged.

¶17

4.In my opinion, it was obligatory on the revisional Court to
prima facie discuss/indicate material which, according to the
Sessions Court, is against the petitioner. In the absence of prima
facie reference to the material against the petitioner, the revision
could not have been dismissed based on vague reasons that the
material on record is sufficient to indicate involvement of the
petitioner in the offence alleged. Perusal of the order of revisional
Court, it does not appear to have referred any material which,
according to the revisional Court, is sufficient to indicate
involvement of the petitioner. It is, therefore, necessary that
proceedings be remanded back to the revisional Court for decision
afresh in accordance with law. Hence, following order:

¶18

a)The impugned judgment and order dated 3rd February 2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur in
Criminal Revision Application No.1 of 2023 is quashed and set

¶19

¶20

13-wp975-2023.doc

¶21

aside;

¶22

b)Proceedings are remanded back to the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Islampur who shall decide Criminal Revision
Application No.1 of 2023 in accordance with law.

¶23

5.The criminal revision application stands disposed of in above
terms. No costs.

¶24

6.The petitioner is permitted to file appropriate application for
stay of warrants issued against the petitioner. If such application is
filed, the revisional Court shall decide the same in accordance with
law expeditiously.

¶25

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶26

Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. the 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

Bhagwan Singh Duggal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kosha Investment Limited and Anr. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs Kosha Investment Limited

Shri Popat Eknath Vadje (Since Decd) through Lrs. and Ors. vs Shri Bandu Shankar Datir and Ors.

Muzaffar Dawood Kazi Vs He State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr.Omprakash B Soniminde Vs Ratan B. Datwani and Anr.