Bombay High Court
Prashant Bhausaheb Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 7 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:27934
2052.24crwp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2052 OF 2024
Prashant Bhausaheb Patil ....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Smt. Manisha Sanjay Patil
3. Bhausaheb Bhagwan Patil ....Respondents
.....
Mr V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b Mr A. V. Hon, Advocate for
Petitioner
Mr G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1/State
Mr Baig Mirza Mazhar Javed, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr A. D. Sonkawade, Advocate for Respondent No.3
.....
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 30 SEPTEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07 OCTOBER 2025
ORDER :
-
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order
dated 05/11/2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No.28/2023, thereby allowing
the said revision application filed by respondent No.2 and directing to
try petitioner and other accused. Petitioner also prays for restoring the
order dated 08/06/2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
2052.24crwp
Class, Dhule, below Exhibit 16 in Regular Criminal Case No.115/2016
whereby the application for adding the petitioner as accused was
rejected.
2. According to the petitioner, he is teacher in secondary
school by name Gurudatta Secondary School situated at Sayani, Taluka
and District Dhule. According to him, at the time of crime he was
present on duty, and therefore, not connected with the alleged crime/
FIR filed by respondent No.2 against respondent No.3 for the offence
punishable under Section 324, 447, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code. The copy of printed FIR discloses the name of present
petitioner as accused No.2, however, while filing the charge-sheet, the
Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet only against accused
No.1, namely, Bhausaheb Bhagwan Patil and not against the present
petitioner. Therefore, on 14/10/2019, the Prosecution filed an
application below Exhibit 16 before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Dhule, under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure
for adding name of present petitioner as an accused in the said crime.
Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after perusing record,
observed that there is no sufficient material against the petitioner to
array him as an accused, and as such, vide order dated 08/06/2023,
application below Exhibit 16 was rejected. Being aggrieved by the
2052.24crwp
order dated 08/06/2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Dhule, respondent No.2, who is original informant approached
the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule, by preferring Criminal Revision
No.28/2023. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule vide the
impugned order dated 05/11/2024, allowed the said revision
application and therefore the petitioner has approached this Court for
quashing and setting aside the said impugned order.
3. According to the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioner, respondent No.2, being informant was not empowered
to prefer Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, as initially, application for adding the petitioner
as an accused was made by the prosecution before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class. He states that remedy of filing revision is
available to the person aggrieved, which according to him is only the
State. He also submits that, at the time of commission of crime, the
petitioner who is a teacher was present in the school, and as such, the
allegations against him are false and baseless. According to him, there
is no material against present petitioner in the FIR, and therefore, the
learned Sessions Judge committed grave error in allowing the revision
application.
2052.24crwp
4. Per contra, learned APP and learned Advocate for
respondent No.2 have opposed the instant petition vehemently.
According to learned Advocate for respondent No.2, the informant is
having remedy to approach against the order passed by learned
J.M.F.C. by filing revision application under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
He invited my attention to the contents of FIR, wherein specific role of
assaulting the informant at the hands of present petitioner is
established. He also submits that there is statement of one eye witness
who has also stated in accordance with the contents of the FIR and
disclosed the presence of the petitioner at the spot. According to him,
the crime took place at 15:30 hours on 15/08/2015. On the said date,
there being holiday for Independence Day, and therefore, there was no
occasion for the petitioner to go to school in the afternoon hours. The
informant has clearly pointed out role of the present petitioner in her
report to the Police as well as in her evidence i.e. examination-in-chief
dated 14/10/2019. The informant has specifically stated that present
petitioner assaulted on her thighs with stick. Learned Advocate for
respondent No.2 also submits that accused is named in the FIR and a
report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to
have been filed against the petitioner or he should have been
discharged under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In
2052.24crwp
fact, there is neither charge-sheet against the petitioner nor discharge
under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Therefore,
according to him, learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly allowed
the criminal revision application, and as such, said order is correct and
no interference is required.
5. The question which arises before this Court is in respect
of whether at this stage the ground of alibi taken by the petitioner can
be considered. Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 i.e. Section
109 of the Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam, 2023 states that when any
fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him. Thus, it is for the petitioner to establish
his case by adducing evidence before the Sessions Court, and
therefore, at this stage, his contention as regards presence or absence
on the spot cannot be considered. As regards ground of maintainability
of revision petition at the behest of the informant is concerned, the
informant, being a victim is having right to be heard and she cannot be
asked to await for commencement of the trial for asserting his/her right
to participate in the proceedings. The victim has legally vested right to
be heard at every step post the occurrence of the offence as the victim
has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till
2052.24crwp
the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. Therefore,
the victim who is informant, is entitled to prefer revision application
against the order of learned J.M.F.C. under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
6. It is also pertinent to mention here that, in the judgment
reported in Omi @ Omkar Rathore and another Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and another, (2025) 2 SCC 621 given by Hon'ble
Apex Court, the principle as regards Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. came to
be summarized as under :-
"a. On a careful reading of Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it
becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to
add any person not being the Accused before it to face the trial
along with other Accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any
stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the
persons who have not been arrayed as Accused should face the
trial. It is further evident that such person even though had
initially been named in the F.I.R. as an Accused, but not charge
sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.
b. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as
Accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not
on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case
diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or
the case diary do not constitute evidence.
2052.24crwp
c. The power of the court Under Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is not controlled or governed by naming or
not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is
dependent upon submission of the chargesheet by the police
against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the
phrase 'any person not being the Accused' occurred in Section
319 excludes from its operation an Accused who has been
released by the police Under Section 169 of the Code and has
been shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet, the contention
has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression
clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the
Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like
Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been
dropped by the police during investigation but against whom
evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before
the Criminal Court are included in the said expression.
d. It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the
application for addition of new Accused by considering records
of the Investigating Officer. When the evidence of complainant
is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of
Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the
purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated."
7. Thus, the learned Sessions Court has rightly found that
there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. Hence, the
2052.24crwp
order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. came to be quashed and set aside
and criminal revision came to be allowed. This Court at the Principal
Seat, vide order dated 05/05/2017 passed in Writ Petition
No.599/2014, was pleased to observe that under Section 169, if upon
an investigation, it appears to the officer in-charge of Police Station
that there is no sufficient evidence on reasonable ground of suspicion
to justify the forwarding of accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall
release the said person on executing a bond, with or without sureties,
as such officer may direct to appear, if and when so required before the
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police
report and to try the accused or commit him for trial. However, it is
also advantageous to refer to Rule 218 and 219 of the Bombay Police
Manual, which prescribes the procedure and guidelines for filing
charge-sheet or a final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. As per
Rule 219, when there is no sufficient evidence to justify the
forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police Station Officer
shall release the said accused person on bail if he is in custody. Thus,
Rules of the Bombay Police Manuals as well as provisions of Criminal
Procedure Code indicate that the concerned officer in-charge of the
Police Station has to either file a report referred to as charge-sheet in
Rule 218, or a final report as contemplated under Rule 219 of the
2052.24crwp
Bombay Police Manual. Needless to state that final report should
contain detail reasons for not sending the accused for trial.
8. In the case in hand, though the Investigating Officer has
already submitted charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.
however, the same is silent as regards the petitioner. It is made clear
that filing of charge-sheet or final report is not an empty formality.
Such report should contain all the details for not sending accused for
trial, so as to enable the Magistrate to decide what course to adopt i.e.
whether accept the report and discharge the bonds or order further
investigation or to take cognizance of the offence. As the concerned
Investigating Officer has not filled up all the required details pertaining
to petitioner, the order passed by the sessions Court in revision is
correct and proper, and therefore, requires no interference by this
Court. Accordingly, the instant criminal writ petition is dismissed.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk
