Bombay High Court
Prachi Nikunj Harlalka vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Shegaon ... on 8 September, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 580 OF 2022
Sau. Prachi Nikunj Harlalka, age about
34 years, Occ - Honorary Service c/o
Rajesh Muktilal Paldiwal, Shegaon, Tq.
shegaon, Distt. Buldhana
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through PSO,
Shegaon City Police Station,
Shegaon, Taluka - Shegaon, District
- Buldhana.
2. Nikunj Ramakant Harlalka, Age
about 36 years, Occ - Business.
3. Urmila Ramakant Harlalka, age
about 61 years, occ - Business.
4. Nishant Ramakant Harlalka
age about 34 years, Occ - Business
No. 2 to 4 R/o 1801/1802/1803 Ivy
Towers, Off Vasant Valley Complex
Malad East, Mumbai / 400097
... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Shri K.S. Ganorkar, Advocate h/f Shri A.D. Bhate, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri I.J. Damle, A.P.P. for the respondent no. 1.
______________________________________________________________
2
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED. : 08.09.2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. The petitioner (informant) has challenged the even dated
orders of the Trial Court of 03.03.2022 on Exhibit 14 and 15 by which
the Trial Court directed to proceed with the discharge application
without say of the informant. At the instance of the petitioner, crime
was registered by the Police for the offence punishable under Section
498(A), 506, 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was
culminated into a filing of charge-sheet numbered as R.C.C.154 of
2021. In said proceeding, two accused have applied for discharge vide
applications at Exhibit 14 and 15. The petitioner in the capacity of
informant, sought permission to assist the prosecution, which was
allowed, however, the Trial Court declined for granting petitioner
further time to file say to discharge application, on the ground that
several opportunities were given.
3. Having regard to the limited controversy and as it is a State
case, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to respondent nos. 2 to
4, who are the accused as it will unnecessarily prolong the matter.
4. Heard finally by consent of both learned Counsel appearing
for the parties.
5. It reveals from the record that two accused have applied for
discharge on 16.07.2021 vide application at Exhibit 14 and 15, which
remain to be undecided for longer period. On 03.03.2022, the Trial
Court has allowed the petitioner's application to assist the prosecution,
but declined to grant further time to file reply to discharge application
in resistance.
6. It is informed that the Trial Court has fixed the matter on
29.09.2022 for hearing on discharge application. The petitioner is
aggrieved party. Already the Trial Court permitted the petitioner to
assist the prosecution. In the eventuality, allowing the petitioner to file
reply to discharge application, would also meet the principle of natural
justice. Of course, the petitioner has limited rights to assist the
prosecution as permissible under law. Denial to file say may cause
injustice.
7. In view of that, both impugned orders dated 03.03.2022
passed on Exhibit 14 and 15 to the extent of denying petitioner from
filing say, are set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file reply to both
discharge applications Exhibit 14 and 15 on 29.09.2022. It is hereby
made clear that, if the petitioner fails to file reply on 29.09.2022 to
discharge application, this petition shall be treated as dismissed and the
Trial Court is free to proceed on the matter, without reply.
8. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as
to costs.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL
12.09.2022 10:41
