Rajeshwar Vaijnath Buke and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC11 Dec 2025WP/522/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of complainant/witness for further evidence; production of additional documents after Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination; relevance of documents; prejudice to rights of accused; Section 311 Cr.P.C. power/prerogative to recall witnesses; quashing of Magistrate's order; R.C.C. No. 272 of 2012; Nilanga, Dist. Latur; CRWP 522 of 2025; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Abhay J. Mantri, J.; decided 11-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (A); the impugned orders dated 11th February, 2025 passed below Exhs. 215 and 217 in R.C.C. No. 272 of 2012 by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga quashed and set aside; learned Magistrate to be informed accordingly; Rule made absolute; no order as to costs. ¶¶33

Rajeshwar Vaijnath Buke and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11th February, 2025 passed by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga below Exhs. 215 and 217 in R.C.C. No. 272 of 2012, permitting the complainant to be recalled for further evidence and to produce documents, is liable to be quashed and set aside. +3 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

The order passed by the learned Magistrate permitting the complainant to produce the documents and lead additional evidence is manifestly illegal and perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law; it is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

Permitting the complainant to produce the documents on record and lead additional evidence would certainly cause prejudice to the rights of the accused persons.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The documents produced prima facie do not appear relevant to the case; mere signature of the accused on them is not sufficient; the complainant had deposed in cross-examination that he handed over all documents to the Investigating Officer at the time of filing the complaint, the documents are not part of the charge-sheet, and the witness has not deposed about them.ratio¶¶28
The learned Magistrate's observation that any party can examine any person at any stage is contrary to the mandate in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.; it is the prerogative of the Court to recall any witness or person already examined if his evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of order permitting recall of complainant for further evidence after closure of prosecution evidence and Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination — Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Abhay J. Mantri, J., 11.12.2025 — Petitioners (accused in R.C.C. No. 272 of 2012 before 2nd JMFC, Nilanga) challenged order dated 11.02.2025 below Exhs. 215 & 217 permitting respondent no.2 (complainant) to recall himself and produce documents — Held: produced documents prima facie irrelevant; mere signature of accused insufficient; complainant had handed over all documents to police while lodging the complaint; documents not part of charge-sheet and witness never deposed about them; permitting production and additional evidence would cause prejudice to the accused; Magistrate's observation that any party can examine any person at any stage is contrary to Section 311 Cr.P.C.; recall of an already examined witness is the Court's prerogative where essential to the just decision of the case — Impugned order held manifestly illegal and perverse — Petition allowed; orders quashed and set aside; Rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

¶1

908-CRWP-522-25.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:34707

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 522 OF 2025

¶5

Rajeshwar Vaijnath Buke Age: 60 years, Occu.: Chairman, R/o Saibaba Sugar Factory Shivni (Bu.)

¶6

Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur

¶7

Someshwar Laxmanrao Bhosale Age: 54 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Shvini (Bu.), Tq. Ausa,

¶8

Dist. Latur ..PETITIONERS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Nilanga, Nilanga, Dist. Latur

¶11

Kalappa Yasgwantappa Birajdar Age: 70 years, Occu.: Business & Agri., R/o Bank Colony Road, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur

¶12

..RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr. F.K. Patel, Advocate h/f Mr. J.V. Patil, Advocate for petitioners Mr. S.S. Dande, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 – State Mr. C.J. Sabnis, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶14

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 11^th DECEMBER, 2025

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

Heard. Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, at the admission stage.

¶17

The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 11^th February, 2025 passed by the 2^nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga (for short, ‘ the

¶18

1 / 4

¶19

908-CRWP-522-25.odt

¶20

Magistrate ’) below Exh.215 and 217 in R.C.C. No. 272 of 2012, whereby the learned Magistrate permitted the applicant to recall the complainant for further evidence and produce the documents, and therefore, has preferred this petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the evidence in the present case has been concluded. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘ Cr.P.C. ’), has been recorded by the Court, and therefore, allowing the application filed by the respondent caused prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. Consequently, he submitted that the said order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

He further drew my attention to the cross-examination of the complainant, wherein the complainant had deposed that while lodging the complaint, he had handed over all the documents to the police. Therefore, the question also does not arise to permit the complainant to produce the document. Similarly, he argued that those documents are neither part of the charge-sheet nor produced before the Court while recording the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, it would not be proper to permit the complainant to produce them on record. Hence, he urged that the petition be allowed.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has strongly opposed the petition and contended that the passing of the order by the learned Magistrate is just and proper and no interference is required in it.

¶24

2 / 4

¶25

908-CRWP-522-25.odt

¶26

He further submitted that if the respondent no.2 is permitted to produce the documents and adduce further evidence, it would not cause prejudice to the right of the accused persons. Still, the accused persons would get an opportunity to cross-examine him, and therefore, he urged that the petition be dismissed.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record, at the outset, it appears that the evidence of prosecution is closed and the learned Magistrate has examined the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 11^th October, 2024. It also appears that, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused stated that the complainant had collected the amount from the farmers but had not paid him. Therefore, the complainant moved the application for production of the said documents and to permit him to adduce further evidence.

¶28

On the last date, Respondent No.2 was directed to produce those documents before the Court. Pursuant to the same, he has produced the documents. On perusal of the same, prima facie, it does not appear how those documents are relevant to the case in hand. Mere signature of the accused on the said documents is not sufficient. Similarly, it seems that, during his cross-examination, the complainant categorically deposed that, at the time of filing the complaint, he handed over all the documents to the Investigating Officer. Likewise, those documents are not part of the charge-sheet, nor has the witness deposed about the said documents, and therefore, in my view,

¶29

3 / 4

¶30

908-CRWP-522-25.odt

¶31

passing of the order by the learned Magistrate for permitting the complainant to produce the document on record and lead additional evidence in that regard, certainly would cause prejudice to the rights of the accused persons.

¶32

In addition, the learned Magistrate has observed that any party can examine any person at any stage. However, the said observation appears to be contrary to the mandate in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. Still, it is the prerogative of the Court to recall any witness or any person already examined, if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. However, prima facie, on perusal of the documents, I am of the view that passing of the order by the learned Magistrate is manifestly illegal and perverse, and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶33

As a result, the petition is allowed in terms of the prayer clause (A). Accordingly, the impugned orderS dated 11^th February, 2025, passed below Exhs. 215 and 217 in R.C.C. No. 272 of 2012 by the 2^nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga, are hereby quashed and set aside. Inform the learned Magistrate accordingly. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

¶34

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )

¶35

SSD

¶36

4 / 4

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 11th February, 2025 passed by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga below Exhs. 215 and 217 in R.C.C. No. 272 of 2012, permitting the complainant to be recalled for further evidence and to produce documents, is liable to be quashed and set aside.¶¶21
The court held
The order passed by the learned Magistrate permitting the complainant to produce the documents and lead additional evidence is manifestly illegal and perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law; it is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.ratio¶¶32
2.
Whether permitting the complainant to produce documents and lead additional evidence after closure of prosecution evidence and recording of the Section 313 statements causes prejudice to the rights of the accused (petitioners).¶¶23
The court held
Permitting the complainant to produce the documents on record and lead additional evidence would certainly cause prejudice to the rights of the accused persons.ratio¶¶31
3.
Whether the documents sought to be produced are relevant to the case and properly producible on record at that stage.¶¶22
The court held
The documents produced prima facie do not appear relevant to the case; mere signature of the accused on them is not sufficient; the complainant had deposed in cross-examination that he handed over all documents to the Investigating Officer at the time of filing the complaint, the documents are not part of the charge-sheet, and the witness has not deposed about them.ratio¶¶28
4.
Whether the learned Magistrate's observation that any party can examine any person at any stage accords with the mandate of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.¶¶32
The court held
The learned Magistrate's observation that any party can examine any person at any stage is contrary to the mandate in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.; it is the prerogative of the Court to recall any witness or person already examined if his evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.ratio¶¶32

Rajeshwar Vaijnath Buke and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Vaijnath Buke and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Narayandas Rizwani and Another Vs Rajesh Kishandas Rizwani and Others

Pranali Bhushan Zope and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kantilal Shantilal Surana Vs Bhushan Sakharchand Kankariya

Vithal Shankar Lade (L.Rs.) Bhagabai. Vs Tukaram Shankar Lade and Another.

Asmita Avinash Umale Vs Avinash Madhukar Umale

Varsha Bhimrao Unhale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another