Nazim Mustak Qureshi vs The State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 4029 Bom

                                  1          946-Cri.Rev.Appln.60-23 (oral jud.).odt




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2023

     Nazim S/o Mustak Qureshi,
     Age: 32 years, Occ: Social work,
     R/o: Zaker Galli, Sub-Jail Road,
     Ahmednagar Tq. & District: Ahmednagar.         ... Applicant.

             Versus

     The State of Maharashtra
     Through Kotwali Police Station
     Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.            ... Respondent.

                                    ...
           Advocate for Applicant-Petitioner : Mr. Magre Sunil G.
             APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. P. Sonpawale.
                                    ...

                               CORAM :     S. G. MEHARE, J.

                               DATE :      21.04.2023

     ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

by consent of the parties.

2. The applicant has impugned the order rejecting the

application for discharge by the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate (Court No.10), Ahmednagar, below Exh.29,

in RCC.No.1000 of 2019, dated 16.12.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued

that bare statement of one witness under Section 161 of the

2 946-Cri.Rev.Appln.60-23 (oral jud.).odt

C.P.C. is insufficient to frame the charge against the applicant.

The said witness never complained against the applicant.

Hence, it cannot be received or considered for framing the

charge.

4. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application. He

would contend that the statement under Section 161 recorded

during the course of the investigation is material to prosecute

the accused and frame the charges. If such arguments are

allowed, there would no charges framed against any of the

accused.

5. Reading Sections 227 and 161 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is

of the view that statements of the witnesses under Section 261

of the Cr.P.C. are the part of the record and it is a material

useful for framing the charges. The arguments of the applicant

are totally misdirected. Hence, cannot be accepted.

6. Learned Additional Chief Juridial Magistrate (Court

No.10), Ahmednagar has correctly assigned the reasons for

rejecting the application. The applicant has no ground to claim

the discharge.

7. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application stands

dismissed.

3 946-Cri.Rev.Appln.60-23 (oral jud.).odt

8. Rule stands discharged

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

...

vmk/-