Lahu Shivram Gaikwad vs Shivaji Shankar Shinde & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1893 Bom

                                                                1                                                          212.1112.03 wp


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1112 OF 2003

Lahu Shivram Gaikwad                                                                                   ....Petitioner

           Vs.

Shivaji Shankar Shinde and Ors                                                                         ... Respondents

Mr. Ravindra V. Sankpal Advocate for Petitioner
None for respondents
Ms. Neeta Jain APP for the State.

                               CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.

                                DATED : 20th APRIL, 2017.

JUDGMENT:

1)         Heard.



2)         Petitioner herein is an accused in Criminal Case No. 319 of 2000

pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur and is being prosecuted for

offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code

alleging therein that one Narayan Shyinde was chairman of Rajyasarathi

Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha. That the complainant was acquainted with

him. That the complainant had paid Rs. 11,000/- to the society soliciting

ism

2 212.1112.03 wp

membership of the society. He had also paid Rs. 260/- towards share price and

Rs. 20,000/- to present respondent nos. 3 & 4 who were builders.

Complainant was given assurance that he would give plot constructed up to

plinth level admeasuring 1250 sq. meters. He had subsequently realized that

he had been cheated by the present petitioner and respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5

and hence, had filed complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur.

3) The learned Magistrate had recorded verification of the complainant

and had, after subjective satisfaction, arrived at a conclusion that the

complainant has made out prima facie case and that there are sufficient

grounds to proceed against the accused for offence punishable under section

420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, vide order dated

16/12/2002 had issued process against all the accused. The learned Magistrate

had then recorded evidence before charge and after perusal of the substantive

evidence of the complainant, had arrived at a conclusion that there is

sufficient evidence on record to frame the charge against the accused for

offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

ism





                                                                 3                                                          212.1112.03 wp


4)         Being aggrieved by the said order of framing of charge, accused had

filed Criminal Revision Application Nos. 2 of 2003, 4 of 2003 and 22 of

2003. Revisional Court, by a common order was pleased to dismiss the

Criminal Revision Application No. 4 of 2003 and 22 of 2003, however,

Criminal Revision Application No. 2 of 2003 was allowed. The revision was

partly allowed by Judgment and Order dated 26/03/2003. Present petition was

filed in July 2003 and was circulated for 13/08/2003. This Hon'ble Court by

an order dated 13/08/2003 was pleased to issue notice and grant ad-interim

stay in terms of prayer clause (d) to the petition and hence, further

proceedings were stayed.

5) It is a mater of record that charge was framed on 17/11/2000. Once the

charge was framed, there was no occasion for the learned Sessions Judge to

discharge any of the accused as framing of charge by itself would mean that

trial had commenced. It was necessary to take framing of charge to its logical

end.

6)         In view of this, petition deserves to be disposed of since the trial has



ism





                                                                 4                                                          212.1112.03 wp

commenced. This Court cannot quash the charge which is framed. Without

going into the merits of the matter, only on the ground that the charge is

framed, this Court is inclined to dispose of the petition.

7) The learned Magistrate shall proceed with further stages of the trial.

Office to communicate this order to the concerned Court, forthwith. It is made

clear that all contentions are kept open.

8)         Rule is discharged.



                                                                     (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)




ism