Suresh Ram Ramaswamy vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 7227 Bom

                                         1/2                         34 wp 2401.23.docx


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       Criminal Writ Petition No. 2401 of 2023

 Suresh Ram Ramaswamy                                      ...      Petitioner
       v/s.
 The State of Maharashtra & & ors.                         ...        Respondents


 Mr Advait Helekar a/w. Jayesh Bhosle, Manuj Borkar, Nyoyshi
 Bharucha i/b. Adithya Iyer for the petitioner.

 Respondent No.3 present in person.
 Mrs S.D. Shinde, APP for the State.

                               CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                       R.N.LADDHA, JJ.

DATE : 19th July 2023

P.C. :

Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2. Respondent No.3 is personally present in the Court and waives notice. She seeks time of four weeks to engage a lawyer and file reply in the matter.

3. In view of above, stand over to 12th September, 2023.

2/2 34 wp 2401.23.docx

4. The contention of the counsel for petitioner are that the prayer for discharge was rejected by the Court of Magistrate by passing an order below Exhibit 21 on 3 rd April 2023. According to him the petitioner is facing warrant trial for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC which is not maintainable. He would further urge that even if offence as alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 509 of the IPC, still the same cannot be prima facie inferred against the petitioner, as the prosecution story is based on the publication of an offending article circulated by the petitioner which cannot be termed as an offence under above provision.

5. According to him, the issue is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of S. Khushboo v/s. Kanniammal & anr.1 particularly paragraph-23.

6. We have perused the observations of the Apex Court in the said judgment.

7. In view of observations therein, particularly as regards the ingredients of Section 509, we are of the view that framing of charge be deferred against the petitioner until further orders.

         R.N. LADDHA, J.                       NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
 Lata Panjwani, P.S.


 1    (2010) 5 SCC 600