Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Mohit Chandra Bhardwaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 November, 2020

Author: Revati Mohite Dere

Bench: Revati Mohite Dere

           Digitally
           signed by
Shagufta   Shagufta Q.
           Pathan
Q.         Date:                                                             15-wp-st-2897-2020.doc
Pathan     2020.11.04
           17:13:30
           +0530

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 2897 OF 2020

                 Mohit Chandra Bhardwaj (In-person)                     ...Petitioner
                     Versus
                 The State of Maharashtra                               ...Respondent


                 Mr. Mohit Chandra Bhardwaj, Petitioner in-person

                 Mrs. S. V. Sonawane, A.P.P for the Respondent-State


                                            CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

TUESDAY, 3rd NOVEMBER 2020 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) P.C. :

1 According to the petitioner, the learned Judge ought to have considered the petitioner's discharge application filed under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (`Cr.P.C'), on merits, as the parameters/considerations for discharge under Section 227 and Section 239 are different. He submits that initially the petitioner had filed an application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate, which was rejected. He further submits that after the amendment to Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner's case came to be committed to the Sessions Court, having regard to the increase in the quantum of sentence for the SQ Pathan 1/2 15-wp-st-2897-2020.doc offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC') and hence, the petitioner filed an application seeking his discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the learned Sessions Judge whilst rejecting the petitions, observed that a similar application under Section 239 was decided by the Magistrate Court and as such it was not permissible in law for him to reconsider his discharge application now under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

2 Learned A.P.P seeks time to go through the petition. On her request, stand over to 7th December 2020.

3 In the meantime, till the next date, the learned Judge shall not frame the charge as against the petitioner.

4 All concerned to act on the copy of this order, digitally signed by the Senior Private Secretary of this Court.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.