Babarao Mithuji Ghatale vs State Of Maharashtra Through Dgp ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7321 Bom

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/-

Judgment

apl355.12 39

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/-

Judgment

apl355.12 39

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/-

Judgment

apl355.12 39

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/-

Judgment

apl355.12 39

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/-

Judgment

apl355.12 39

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/-

Judgment

apl355.12 39

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 !!

...../-