Sudarshan Jaising Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Feb 2025WP/6694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Framing of charge quashed and set aside; non-compliance with Section 226 Cr.P.C. (opening case for prosecution — describing charge and stating evidence proposed to prove guilt); charge below Exhibit-12 dated 23.02.2024 by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Greater Mumbai; charge silent on date and time of offence; fresh charges to be framed following Section 226 Cr.P.C.; Sudarshan Jaising Kamble v. The State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court; Shivkumar Dige, J.; 26 March 2025; Criminal Writ Petition No.6694 of 2024; Mulund Police Station, Thane.

What did the court decide?

Charges framed against the Petitioner on 23rd February 2024 below Exhibit-12 quashed and set aside; learned Trial Court directed to frame fresh charges by following the provisions of Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. ¶29-30

Sudarshan Jaising Kamble vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29-30

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge framed against the Petitioner on 23rd February 2024 below Exhibit-12 is vitiated because no date and time of the offence is mentioned in the charge. +1 more

¶15-16

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Court explained the charges proposed to be framed against the Petitioner in vernacular, but made no compliance with Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. while framing the charge.

¶21

Key takeaways

The learned Trial Court did not state to the Petitioner what evidence it proposes to prove the guilt of the Petitioner, as required by Section 226 Cr.P.C.ratio¶26-28
The Petition is allowed; the charges framed against the Petitioner are quashed and set aside, and the learned Trial Court shall frame fresh charges against the Petitioner by following the provisions of Section 226 of the Cr.P.C.ratio¶29-30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Shivkumar Dige, J., 26 March 2025 — Criminal Writ Petition No.6694 of 2024: The Petitioner challenged the framing of charge dated 23rd February 2024 below Exhibit-12 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Greater Mumbai, contending that the charge mentioned no date and time of the offence and that the procedure under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. was not followed. Held: although the Trial Court explained the charges proposed to be framed in vernacular and the Petitioner pleaded not guilty, there was no compliance with Section 226 Cr.P.C. (opening case for prosecution — describing the charge and stating by what evidence the prosecutor proposes to prove the guilt of the accused); the Trial Court did not state to the Petitioner what evidence it proposed to prove his guilt. Petition allowed; charges quashed and set aside; Trial Court directed to frame fresh charges by following Section 226 Cr.P.C.

¶1

54-WP-6694-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6694 OF 2024

¶4

Sudarshan Jaising Kamble …. Petitioner V/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

¶6

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAMSANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2025.04.09 17:15:09 +0530

¶7

Mr.Siddharth Jagushite, for the Petitioner. Mr.Kiran C. Shinde, APP, for Respondent-State. Mr.Dnyeshwar Ladse, PSI, Mulund Police Station, Thane.

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶9

DATE : 26^th MARCH 2025

¶10

P.C:-

¶11

. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned

¶12

APP.

¶13

By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the

¶14

framing of the charge, below Exhibit-12 by Special Judge in POCSO Act, Greater Mumbai.

¶15

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the learned Judge has framed charge on 23^rd February 2024 below Exhibit-12 against the Petitioner, but in the

¶16

said charge no date and time of offence is mentioned.

¶17

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

¶18

54-WP-6694-2024.doc

¶19

The learned counsel further submitted that no procedure under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. followed while framing charge. Hence, requested to allow the Petition.

¶20

It is contention of the learned APP that, to take note of the framing of the charge shows that, charge was read over and explained to the Petitioner in vernacular and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It shows that before framing of charge it was read over to the Petitioner. Hence, requested to dismiss the Petition.

¶21

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused order passed by the learned Trial Court while framing charge. It appears that learned Judge has explained charges proposed to be framed against the Petitioner in vernacular, but no compliance under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. is made. Section 226 read thus :-

¶22

“Section 226 of Cr.P.C. : Opening case for prosecution :- When the accused appears or is brought before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under Section 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by

¶23

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

¶24

54-WP-6694-2024.doc

¶25

what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused.

¶26

It appears that, the learned Trial Court has not stated

¶27

to the Petitioner, what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of

¶28

the Petitioner. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

¶29

The Petition is allowed. The charge’s framed against

¶30

the Petitioner are quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Court shall frame fresh charges against the Petitioner by following the provisions of Section 226 of Cr.P.C.

¶31

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶32

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3

Sudarshan Jaising Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Jaising Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kiran Devidas Salunke vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parmendra @ Gauravsing Rajendra Sinha vs State of Maharashtra

Jubed @ Kapala Shabbir Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hitesh Eknath Kadu vs State of Maharashtra

Sagar Dattatray Gorhe vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Tukaram Mohite vs the State of Maharashtra