Bombay High Court
Rushikeesh Prakashrao Deshmukh And Ors vs State Of Maha Thr Pso, Ps, Rajapeth on 10 January, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:335
31.wp.989.2024.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.989 OF 2024
1. Rushikesh Prakashrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 38 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
2. Prakashrao Laxmanrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 65 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
3. Sau. Vidya Prakashrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 60 years, Occ.: Housewife,
4. Pushkaraj Prakashrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 33 years, Occ.: Doctor,
5. Sau. Shruti Pushparaj Deshmukh,
Aged about 29 years, Occ.: Doctor,
6. Sau. Sonali Shridhar More,
Aged about 42 years, Occ.: Service,
7. Shubhangi Sangramsinh Deshmukh,
Aged about 40 years, Occ.: Housewife,
All R/o Mangalmurti Nagar, Parbhani,
Taluka and Dist. Parbhani. ..... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Rajapeth, Amravati,
Taluka and District Amravati. .... RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------
Mr. P. R. Agrawal, Counsel for petitioners.
Mr. C. A. Lokhande, APP for respondent /State.
----------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 10.01.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
31.wp.989.2024.Judgment.odt
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel
appearing for the parties.
3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the
order of framing of charge by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court No.8, Amravati below Exh.51 in RCC
case No.739/2023 dated 03.08.2024.
4. As per the contention of the petitioners, the
petitioners are the original accused in RCC Case No.739/2023
and they are charge sheeted for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. On 16.07.2022 the wife of the petitioner
No.1 namely Prachi Rushikesh Deshmukh lodged report with
respondent Police Station alleging that her marriage with the
petitioner No.1 was performed on 26.04.2021 and thereafter,
she resumed the cohabitation at the house of the present
petitioners, but she was not treated well and she was ill-treated
for the illegal demand and therefore, she constrained to leave
the house and she lodged the report. On the basis of the said
report, police have registered the crime.
5. After completion of the investigation, the
charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioners and
31.wp.989.2024.Judgment.odt
the case was registered as RCC No.739/2023. It is submitted
that before framing of the charge, it was obligatory on the part
of the Presiding Officer to hear the present petitioners, but the
said opportunity was not granted and directly the charge was
framed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention
towards Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
'the Cr.P.C.') and invited my attention towards Sections 239 and
240 of the Cr.P.C. He submitted that Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
deals with when accused shall be discharged as far as the
warrant case is concerned. Section 239 deals with if, upon
considering the police report and the documents sent with it
under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the
accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the
prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the
Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be
groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his
reasons for so doing.
6. Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. deals with framing of
charge which states that if, upon such consideration,
examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion
that there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such
Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could
31.wp.989.2024.Judgment.odt
be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused.
7. A bare perusal of the above said sections makes it
clear that in warrant trial cases, the case has to be begin with
opening of a case by the prosecution and the accused should be
heard prior to framing of the charge. It is not mere a formality.
It has been enacted so that the accused knows in advance the
nature of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to lead to
prove the charge brought against him. It is not mere a
formality. The Magistrate has not followed the same and directly
proceeded to frame a charge against the present petitioners
without complying with the provisions of Sections 239 and 240
of the Cr.P.C. In view of that, the framing of the charge dated
03.08.2024 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.8, Amravati, to pass appropriate orders
after complying with Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C.
With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(URMIL A JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/01/2025 15:41:45
