Dismissed¶30

Harsh Ambala Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Feb 2025REVN/647/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court criminal revision dismissed; challenge to rejection of discharge application dated 27.09.2024 in Sessions Case No.924 of 2019 (Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai); applicant Harsh Ambalal Lohia; State of Maharashtra through Azad Maidan Police Station; assault/altercation with informant and Resident Medical Officer at Tejpal Hospital, Mumbai; obstruction of official duties; prima facie involvement of applicant along with accused No.1; sufficiency of grounds to proceed left to trial; counsel's reliance on Ramprakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.A. No.2395 of 2023 / SLP (Cri) No.6687 of 2023).

What did the court decide?

Taking the allegations in the complaint as they are, no case is made out for discharge of the applicant/accused. ¶29

Harsh Ambala Lohiya vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant/accused deserved discharge, the essential elements of the offences with which he was charged being allegedly absent from the material on record.

¶21

Court's answer

Taking the allegations in the complaint as they are, no case is made out for discharge of the applicant/accused.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

At this stage it cannot be conclusively held that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicant/accused; such a determination falls within the purview of the trial proceedings.

¶29

Key takeaways

On the record, witness statements including that of the informant indicate that both accused persons assaulted and engaged in an altercation with the informant and the Resident Medical Officer at Tejpal Hospital, Mumbai, obstructing them in the discharge of their official duties; prima facie these statements suggest the involvement of the applicant/accused in the alleged offence.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Application No. 647 of 2024 (R.N. Laddha, J.; decided 3 March 2025): Harsh Ambalal Lohia v. The State of Maharashtra (Azad Maidan Police Station). Revision assailing the order dated 27.09.2024 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.924 of 2019, whereby the applicant/accused's discharge application was rejected. Counsel for the applicant urged that the essential elements of the offences charged were absent and relied on Ramprakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.2395 of 2023 [SLP (Cri) No.6687 of 2023]); the learned APP supported the trial court's decision. Held: witness statements, including that of the informant, indicate that both accused persons assaulted and engaged in an altercation with the informant and the Resident Medical Officer at Tejpal Hospital, Mumbai, obstructing them in the discharge of their official duties; prima facie these statements suggest the applicant/accused's involvement; at this stage it cannot be conclusively held that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed, such determination falling within the purview of the trial; taking the complaint allegations as they are, no case for discharge is made out. Revision application dismissed.

¶1

Mamta Kale

¶2

39-revn-647-2024.docx

¶3

MAMTAAMARKALE Digitallysigned byMAMTAAMARKALEDate:2025.03.0319:26:06+0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Criminal Revision Application No. 647 of 2024

¶6

Harsh Ambalal Lohia Aged 36 years, an Indian, permanently residing at 3/301, Navratan Complex, Udaipur City, Rajasthan – 313 001.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra (Through Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai)

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

Mr Ganesh R Dalvi, for the Applicant. Mr V N Sagare, APP, for the respondent/ State. API Anand Shahane, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, is present.

¶12

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 3 March 2025

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

¶15

The legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Page 1 of 3

3 March 2025

Mamta Kale

39-revn-647-2024.docx

¶20

Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.924 of 2019, is assailed in this revision application. The learned Judge, by this order rejected the application filed by the applicant/accused to discharge him.

¶21

The learned Counsel of the applicant/accused submits that the essential elements of the offences for which the applicant was charged are not present in this case. To support this, the learned Counsel referred to the statements of the informant and witnesses. According to the learned Counsel, the learned trial Court did not evaluate the statements properly and was influenced by several assumptions that are not supported by the material on record. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Ramprakash Chadha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.2395 of 2023 [SLP (Cri) No.6687 of 2023].

¶22

The learned APP has argued supporting the decision arrived at by the learned trial Court. According to the learned APP, the entire charge sheet containing statement of witnesses shows that the applicant/accused was all along with accused No.1 and has committed the offence.

¶23

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material on record.

¶24

Upon reviewing the records, it is evident that the witness

Page 2 of 3

3 March 2025

Mamta Kale

39-revn-647-2024.docx

¶29

statements, including that of the informant, unequivocally indicate that both accused persons assaulted and engaged in an altercation with the informant and the Resident Medical Officer at Tejpal Hospital Mumbai, thereby obstructing them in the discharge of their official duties. Prima facie, these statements, suggest the involvement of the applicant/accused in the alleged offence, based on the material available on record. At this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicant/accused, as such a determination falls within the purview of the trial proceedings. In the present case, if the allegations made in the complaint are taken as they are, no case is made out for discharge of the applicant/ accused.

¶30

In light of the above, I do not find any merit in this revision application. Accordingly, the revision application stands dismissed.

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

3 March 2025

Harsh Ambala Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh Ambala Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul @ Lalan Shivaji Shinde vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra R Chaturvedi vs Rajesh Mahajan and Anr.

Rajendra R Chaturvedi vs Rajesh Mahajan and Anr.

Dr Vinod Rameshwar Goyal and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra

Sushil Keshavrao Wghmare vs the State of Maharashtra

Asraf Rahim Beg @ Danny vs State of Maharashtra