Bombay High Court
Noor Mohammad Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 August, 2023
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
Gokhale 1 of 3 50-wp-486-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2023
Noor Mohammad Shaikh ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Gauraj Shah a/w. Rupali Gond for Petitioner.
Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 17 AUGUST 2023 PC :
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10/08/2022 passed by 2nd Jt. J.M.F.C., Cantonment Court, Pune, in S.C.C.No.1583 of 2010. By the impugned order, the proceeding against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the original accused was stopped and they were discharged U/s.258 of the Cr.p.c. from the commission of offence punishable under sections 447, 341 and 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the roznama of the case. The case was pending since 2010 and since October 2015 till 10/08/2022 it was pending in the Lok ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2023 22:50:59 ::: 2 of 3 50-wp-486-23 Nyayalaya. On 10/08/2022 suddenly, the learned Magistrate passed an order discharging the accused. He observed that the accused No.3 was absent when called. The prosecution failed to secure their presence. Keeping the matter pending for the presence of accused would be a futile exercise. On these grounds, the accused were discharged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate did not give any reasons for discharging the accused. Their absence cannot be used against the prosecution. The bail bonds were already executed and, therefore, the learned Magistrate could have issued warrants against the accused to secure their presence. In any case, the roznama shows that for a long time the matter was pending in the Lok Nyayalaya, therefore, neither the prosecution nor the first informant was responsible for the pendency of the matter.
4. Considering these submissions, it is necessary to hear the other side. The office note shows that, Vakilpatra is already filed for the Respondent No.2, however, there is no reference about ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2023 22:50:59 ::: 3 of 3 50-wp-486-23 notice sent to the Respondent No.3.
5. Therefore, issue fresh Notice to both the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for final disposal of the petition at the admission stage. The Notices are made returnable on 20/10/2023.
6. Stand over to 20/10/2023.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2023 22:50:59 :::