Bombay High Court
Babarao Mithuji Ghatale vs State Of Maharashtra Through Dgp Akola on 20 September, 2017
Author: V.M. Deshpande
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
apl355.12 39
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.355 OF 2012
Babarao Mithuji Ghatale,
Aged about 52 years,
Occupation : Service (Range
Officer), R/o Opposite Athithi
Wine Bar, Hingoli Naka,
Washim, Taluka and District
Washim. ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
State of Maharashtra,
Through D.G.P., Akola, Taluka
and District Akola. ..... Non-applicant.
================================================================
Shri Anil S. Mardikar, Senior Counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl.P.P. for the State.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard .....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:33 ::: Judgment apl355.12 39 2 finally by consent of learned senior counsel Shri Anil S. Mardikar for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri R.S. Nayak for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to challenge orders passed by the Courts below. Firstly, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.13, at Akola, on 22.9.2011 below Exhibit 11 in Summary Criminal Case No.5349 of 2008, rejected the application for discharge.
Being aggrieved by such rejection, the applicant filed a revision before the Revisional Court bearing Criminal Revision No.163 of 2011 and learned Additional Sessions Judge at Akola, vide judgment and order dated 10.2.2012, dismissed the revision.
3. The applicant, at the relevant time, was working .....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:33 ::: Judgment apl355.12 39 3 as a Forester and was residing in the colony of Forest Department Employees' situated at Sindhi Camp at Akola.
4. On 21.3.2008, Santosh Shatrughna Dhanorkar lodged a report against the present applicant. The said report was disclosing a commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, the Police Station Officer of Police Station Civil Lines at Akola registered crime against the applicant vide Crime No.3062 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. After completion of the investigation, the final report was presented before the Court of law and the case was registered as Summary Criminal Case No.5349 of 2008.
6. During the pendency of the said criminal case, on 29.7.2011 an application for discharge was moved by the applicant. The said application is at Exhibit 11, which is .....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:33 ::: Judgment apl355.12 39 4 rejected and the revision, which was carried, was also dismissed.
7. According to learned senior counsel Shri Anil S. Mardikar for the applicant, there is no material against the present applicant by which it could be said that there are any grounds for framing of the charge. Learned senior counsel also submits that the incident, in question, is dated 15.3.2008 whereas the first information report is lodged on 21.3.2008. Learned senior counsel also invites my attention to page No.21 to show that the police station exists only one kilometer away from the alleged place of the incident. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the application ought to have been allowed by learned Judge of the Court below.
8. At the time of considering the application for discharge, in my view, the question of delay is not material .....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:33 ::: Judgment apl355.12 39 5 inasmuch as it is always open to the prosecution to explain the delay during the course of evidence. It is for the trying Magistrate either to accept the reason for delay or reject the same. It will have its own impact on the final decision of the case. However, merely because there is a delay, that itself cannot be a ground for discharge, if other material and grounds exist against such accused for framing of the charge.
9. With the assistance of learned senior counsel Shri Anil S. Mardikar for the applicant, I have perused the first information report so also the statements of Kusum, mother of the first informant and one Sunil.
10. On perusal of the said, it is clear that sufficient material is there to frame the charge against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
.....6/-
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:33 ::: Judgment apl355.12 39 6
11. In one of recent decisions, the Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan ..vs.. Fatehkaran Mehdu reported at 2017(3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 444 though considered the scope of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and has observed that at the stage of framing of charge the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied.
12. In view of the aforesaid dictum from the Honourable Apex Court and in view of the facts, as noticed from the first information report, and the statements of prosecution witnesses, I see no reason to upset the orders .....7/-
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:33 ::: Judgment apl355.12 39 7 passed by the Courts below.
13. Hence, the criminal application is dismissed. The Rule is discharged. Interim orders dated 21.6.2012 stands vacated.
JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 02:01:33 :::