Bombay High Court
Pravin vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2011
Bench: A.P. Bhangale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 271 /2007
1) Pravin s/o Manikrao Naik
Aged about 39 years, occu: Business
2) Manikrao s/o Anandrao Naik
Aged about 64 years, occu: NIL
Both R/po shivaji Ward,
Ppusad Tah.Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
v e r s u s
..APPLICANTS
1) The State of Maharashtra
(Through Gramin Police Station)
Pusad Tah.Pusad Dist. Yavatmal.
2) Sk.Sattar s/o Sk. Hanif,
Aged about 42 years, occu: Agril
R/o Dhansal Tq.Pusad Dist.'Yavatmal. ..RESPONDENTS
............................................................................................................................
Mr. R.R.Prajapati, Adv.h/for Shri S.D.Chopde, Advocate for applicants
Mrs. A R Taywade, APP for Respondent No.1
Mr J B Kasat Adv. For Respondent No.2
.......................................................................................................................
CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE , J.
DATEd: 5 December, 2011
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The revision-applicants question the legality, validity and
correctness of the impugned order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the
learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 64/2005
whereby on the basis of application by the complainant (first
informant ) Sk. Sattar Sk. Hanif the impugned order was passed. The
first informant applied to the learned trial Judge that he had lodged a
complaint against as many as 98 persons naming them in the
complaint, but for the reasons best known to the police they decided to
pick and choose and charge-sheeted only 62 persons. Thus,
according to complainant, all 98 persons named in the FIR ought to
have been prosecuted as the complaint is self-explanatory; but the
learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge who heard the application,
observed that names of all the accused though disclosed were not
charge-sheeted without any reason. According to learned trial Judge
the Investigating officer is answerable and for just and proper decision
of the case it is necessary to add all the accused named by the first
informant in the FIR.
2. According to the learned Advocate for the revision
applicants, the investigation had followed the FIR and during the course
of investigation, no case was disclosed against this applicants, therefore
they were deleted from the charge-sheet. It is submitted that there is
no evidence available against them during the course of investigation.
The applicants also sought to defend the proceedings by pleading alibi
and non-liability for the crime in question which is of course allegedly
committed. Be that as it may, when the first informant specifically
named 98 persons in the FIR, the police could not have omitted those
persons named in the FIR as police for themselves cannot have sweet
will to decide as to who should be discharged from the case or not to
be charge-sheeted, without approval of the Court concerned. The
police have duty to place entire material collected during the course of
investigation along with the complaint/FIR, statement of witnesses,
documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation etc.
before the competent Criminal Court in the form of final report/ charge-
sheet and it must be left to the Court concerned to decide as to
whether any person though named in the FIR can be discharged or not.
It is open to those who are summoned on the ground that their names
were included in the FIR but no material was collected against them in
the course of investigation to apply for discharge in accordance with
law. In view of these observations, the impugned order appears correct,
according to law and need not be interfered with in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. Hence Revision Application is dismissed. R & P
be sent back forthwith.
JUDGE
Sahare
