Dismissed¶24

Gurudas Baburao Kharode v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2025WP/2240/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Under the scheme of the Cr.P.C., 1973, once a statutory report is submitted under sub-section (8) and the Court accepts or declines to accept the police report, there is no provision authorising the Magistrate or the Court to order or pass any order directing further or fresh investigation. ¶19

Gurudas Baburao Kharode vs State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Investigating Officer can be directed by writ to file an additional or supplementary charge-sheet in FIR No.228 of 2024, the petitioner being an accused, on the plea that the concluded investigation is vitiated for want of fairness. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

The prayer made in the writ petition is completely misplaced, inasmuch as an additional or supplementary charge-sheet can normally be filed only to add a further offence or another accused person.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

¶19

Key takeaways

As an express assumption, left undecided, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 may pass an order even where the Court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence and the matter is posted for framing of charges.obiter¶19
It is a well-settled principle that the jurisdiction under Article 226 shall not be exercised contrary to statutory provisions; even if exercisable in peculiar facts and circumstances, the present case is not one of such magnitude warranting such exercise.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition No.2240 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ & Gautam A. Ankhad, J. — Decided 22nd December 2025 — DISMISSED. The petitioner, an accused in FIR No.228 of 2024 wherein investigation had culminated in a charge-sheet and the case was listed for framing of charges, sought (i) a direction to the Investigating Officer to file an additional or supplementary charge-sheet on the ground that the investigation was vitiated and caused miscarriage of justice, and (ii) restraint against the victim defaming him. Held: under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when a report is submitted under section 173 and thereafter a report under sub-section (8) is submitted and the Court accepts or declines it, there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. authorising the Magistrate or the Court to order further or fresh investigation; an additional or supplementary charge-sheet can normally be filed only to add a further offence or another accused person, rendering the prayer misplaced; jurisdiction under Article 226 shall not be exercised contrary to statutory provisions, and the present case is not of such magnitude (the Court assumed, without deciding, that Article 226 power may be exercised even where cognizance has been taken and charges are pending framing). Babubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254, relied on; T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, referred to. Petition dismissed.

¶1

6.2240.25-wp.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2240 OF 2025

¶4

Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ BASAVRAJ GURAPPA GURAPPA PATIL PATIL Date: 2025.12.25 11:05:10 +0530

¶5

Gurudas Baburao Kharode .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ...

¶7

Mr. Priyal G. Sarda a/w. Ms. Seema S. Dighe and Mr. Praveen Kamble, Advocates for the Petitioner

¶8

Mrs. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. J. P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1-State

¶9

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶10

DATE : 22^nd DECEMBER 2025

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This writ petition seeks a direction to the Investing Officer to file an additional or supplementary charge-sheet in First Information Report No.228 of 2024. The petitioner, who is an accused in the said crime, seeks a further direction to restrain the victim from defaming the petitioner and creating disturbance in his personal and family life.

¶13

Mrs. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that the aforementioned criminal case is listed before the Court concerned for framing of charges.

¶14

Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision in “Babubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.” (2010) 12 SCC 254 and submits that the High Court may issue a direction for a fair and impartial investigation in the interest of justice. The investigation carried out so far, even if culminated in

bgp

Page | 1

6.2240.25-wp.docx

filing of the charge-sheet is vitiated on account of the investigation not being done in a fair and proper manner and has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

¶19

The decision in Babubhai & Ors refers to an order passed by the High Court quashing the First Information Report and clubbing the matter for investigation along with another First Information Report lodged by the police. The High Court further issued a direction to the State CID, Crime Branch to investigate the matter along with the second First Information Report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in “T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala” (2001) 6 SCC 181 and other judgments and came to the conclusion that the incident in both the First Information Reports was common. Under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr.P.C.) when a report is submitted under section 173 of Cr.P.C. on completion of the investigation, the Magistrate has three options; (i) to accept the report and take cognizance of the crime (ii) to decline to accept the report and drop the proceedings and (iii) to order further investigation under sub-section (8). If the statutory report is submitted under sub-section (8) and the Court accepts or declines to accept the police report, there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. authorising the Magistrate or the Court to order or pass any order directing further or fresh investigation. We assume that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may pass an order even where the Court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence and the matter is posted for framing of the charges. However, it is a well settled principle that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be exercised contrary to the statutory provisions and even if it is so exercised in a peculiar facts and circumstances of

bgp

Page | 2

6.2240.25-wp.docx

the case, the present one is not a case of such magnitude. The prayer made in the writ petition is completely misplaced inasmuch as the petitioner seeks filing of additional or supplementary chargesheet which can be filed normally only to add a further offence or another accused person.

¶24

Criminal Writ Petition No.2240 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶25

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶26

bgp

¶27

Page | 3

Gurudas Baburao Kharode v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudas Baburao Kharode v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Green Gene Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Chief Secretary

M/S. Athani Farmers Sugar Factory Ltd. through Its Chairman and M. D. vs Union of India Thr.General Manager

Zuber Abdul Rashid Khan vs State of Maharashtra through D N Nagar Police Station Vide C R No 249 2010

Shree Mansadevi Co-Op. Housing Soc. Ltd. through Secretary and Anr. vs the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Bipin Laju Bhatia vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ananta Chintaman Mohape vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.