Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Balya @ Manoj Madhukar Gudhadhe ... on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
1 2-APPEAL-498-11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2011
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Vrs.
BALYA @ MANOJ MADHUKAR GUDADHE AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for appellant.
Shri R. S. Kurekar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri R. K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Shri R. R. Vyas, Advocate for Intervenor.
Shri A. M. Jaltare, Advocate for Intervenor.
CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATE : 05/01/2023.
1. After opening of the submissions, we came to
understand that by virtue of the order dated 18/08/2022
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter has been
remitted back to this Court with a limited direction to give
right of hearing to the concerned Police Officers against
whom in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court,
charge sheet has been filed and to pass appropriate
directions in respect of Clause (vi) contained in Paragraph
No.28 of Judgment dated 24/07/2018 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.498/2011.
2. Briefly, it can be stated that at the instance of
report lodged by one Kusumbai, a crime No.234/2004 was
registered with Dhantoli, Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 294 r/w 34 of the
2 2-APPEAL-498-11.odt
IPC against two accused namely; Balya @ Manoj
Gudhadhe and his mother - Sheela Gudhadhe. The Trial
Court has recorded a finding of acquittal which was
subject matter of challenge by State in Criminal Appeal
No.498/2011. This Court vide Judgment and order dated
24/07/2018 has dismissed the appeal. However, this
Court has issued certain directions. To be specific, while
confirming the order of acquittal, this Court has directed
the State to pay monetary compensation to the original
accused and particularly, in Clause (vi), directed the State
to file charge sheet against the real culprits and also
against PSI - Baraiyya and other erring police personnel
also have falsely implicated the original accused in the
case.
3. It is informed that in pursuance of said order,
the police of Dhantoli Police Station have filed two charge-
sheets one against PSI - Baraiyya and 5 other police
officers for false implication of the original accused, and
another charge sheet against 5 persons stating to be real
culprits of the original crime.
4. The said order in substance pertaining to the
direction issued by this Court in Clause (vi) has been
challenged by PSI - Baraiyya and accused of another
charge sheet before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that
relation, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
18/08/2022 has remitted the matter back for
reconsideration of the directions issued under Clause (vi)
3 2-APPEAL-498-11.odt
of Paragraph No.28 pertaining to filing of charge sheets.
While remitting the matter back, Hon'ble Supreme Court
has expressed that the persons against whom directions
were issued, have not been heard by this Court and that is
the reason why the matter has been remitted back to this
Court.
5. After remand, learned counsel appearing for
the accused in both the charge sheets are before us for
making submissions obviously for impeaching the
directions issued under Clause (vi) in Paragraph No.28 of
the Judgment.
6. Shri Kurekar, learned counsel is present who
is representing the original accused, who have been
acquitted. However, original Informant is not before us
who has set the entire criminal law into motion.
7. We are not aware as to what is her stand in
the present proceeding, certainly, she was not heard on
the point of directions issued by this Court, while
disposing of appeal. Only to avoid one another round of
litigation, we deem it appropriate to at least give her right
of hearing in this matter so as to set at rest the
controversy.
8. Issue notice to the original Informant namely;
Kusumbai Sohanlal Yadav to appear in this matter.
9. Learned APP is requested to instruct
concerned police and to get served the notice on original
informant on or before the next date without fail, since
4 2-APPEAL-498-11.odt
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the matter time
bound.
10. Stand over to 10/01/2023.
11. Steno copy of this order be supplied to the
learned counsel for the parties.
[VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.] [VINAY JOSHI, J.]
Choulwar
Digitally signed by
VITHAL VITHAL MAROTRAO
MAROTRAO CHOULWAR
Date: 2023.01.05
CHOULWAR 17:03:16 +0530
