Sudhakar Bhavrao Dhatbale Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

Sudhakar Bhavrao Dhatbale Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the grievance that the co-accused ('in a glob with the original accused') had not been made an accused can be pursued after filing of the charge-sheet, and through which provision (the Court points to Section 319 CrPC). +1 more

Court's answer

Once the charge-sheet has already been filed, further action against a person whose involvement the evidence discloses - including the alleged co-accused - can be taken under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio / Principle

The observations in Criminal Application No. 1178/2019 (Sudam Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar) were made in view of the possibilities that could arise from further investigation in that rejected quashing petition, and therefore do not make the present case fit for writ interference.

Key takeaways

This is not a fit case for the Court to exercise its constitutional powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, since an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner; accordingly the petition fails.ratio¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed. Investigation stood completed with charge-sheet in R.C.C. No. 2137/2018; further-investigation communications of 10.11.2019, 08.02.2021 and 09.11.2022 showed no remaining material for a supplementary charge-sheet. The Court held that, after filing of the charge-sheet, action against an alleged co-accused whose involvement the evidence discloses can be taken under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel's reliance on observations in a rejected quashing application (Sudam Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar, Criminal Application No. 1178/2019, decided 05.07.2019) was rejected as those observations concerned possibilities arising from further investigation. Exercising constitutional powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India was declined because an alternative efficacious remedy was available; petition dismissed.

2025:BHC-AUG:27075-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 293 OF 2023

Sudhakar Bhavrao Dhatbale VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Mr. D. A. Bide, Advocate for petitioner Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for respondent-State

CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 25^th September, 2025

PER COURT :-

1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the prayer clauses and the other material on record, it can be seen that the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed vide R.C.C. No. 2137/2018, thereafter, it also appears that the investigation continued and certain documents have been collected i.e., documents appears to have been placed on record which were along with communication dated 10.11.2019. It is then stated that due to the merger of the cellular company, there was some technical problem. However, even by letter dated 08.02.2021 further progress in the investigation was communicated to the Magistrate. On 09.11.2022, it was then informed that there is no further evidence that could to be collected which can be said to be given as a part of

1 of 2

56-Cri WP-293-2023.odt

supplementary charge-sheet. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that coaccused has not been made as accused who was in a glob with the original accused. In this connection we would like to say that when already the charge-sheet is filed, the further action can be taken under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal procedure, if the evidence discloses involvement of any other accused.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is relying upon the observation from Criminal Application No. 1178/2019 decided by this Court on 05.07.2019 (Sudam Nanasaheb Bhandwalkar vs. State of Maharashtra and another). However, that petition was for quashing the proceedings which was rejected i.e., observation were in view of the possibilities that could arise in view of further investigation and, therefore, we do not take this to be fit case where we should exercise our constitution powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and where there is alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner.

4. Petition stands dismissed.

(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)

(Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

B. S. Joshi

2 of 2

56-Cri WP-293-2023.odt