Ashish Anand More And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3195 OF 2016 Ashish Anand More & ors.

.Petitioners Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & anr.

.Respondents Mr.S.Sule i/b. Mr.B.A.Lawate, Advocate, for the Petitioners Ms Pallavi Dabholkar, APP, for the Respondent No.1 - State CORAM :

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 07.10.2016 P.C.

.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned APP for the Respondent No.1 - State.

2.

Rule. Rule is made, returnable forthwith with the consent of parties and is taking up for final disposal forthwith. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 - State.

3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners does not press this Petition qua Petitioner Nos.1 & 3, as this Court was not inclined to consider their prayer for discharge. He submits that the Petitioner Nos.1 & 3 are ready to face the trial. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that as far as the Petitioner Nos.2 & 4 are concerned, they are the brothers-in-law of the deceased and that there are no allegations against them. He submits that not a single witness has deposed against the Petitioner Nos.2 & 4 and only there is a passing reference of the Petitioner No.4 on page No.106 of the Petition. He submitted that considering that there is no material to proceed qua the Petitioner Nos.2 & 4, they be discharged.

4.

Learned APP fairly states that there is no material/allegations qua Petitioner Nos.2 & 4 i.e. the brothers-in-law of the deceased. She also does not dispute the fact, that there is

only a passing reference to the Petitioner No.4 on page No.106 of the Petition.

5.

Perused the papers. By this Petition, the Petitioner Nos.2 & 4 seek quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, by which their Application for discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be rejected.

6.

Perused the entire charge-sheet.

Neither has the Complainant nor have the sisters of the deceased nor have any witness attributed any overt act to the Petitioner Nos.2 & 4 in their statements. In fact, the Petitioner Nos. 2 & 4 have not been named by any witness. No role has been attributed to them by any witness. Similarly, there is a passing reference to

Petitioner No.4's name, however, the said allegation by itself, is not sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code qua the Petitioner Nos.2 & 4.

7.

Considering the fact, that there is absolutely no material to proceed qua Petitioner Nos.2 & 4, the Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute on the following terms:

(i) The Petitioner Nos.2 & 4 are discharged from the case, being S.C.No.391 of 2016 which is arising out of C.R.No.508 of 2015 registered with the Worli Police Station, Mumbai;

(ii) As far as the Petitioner Nos.1 & 3 are concerned, the Petition is disposed of as withdrawn as against them;

(iii) It appears that this Court has already expedited the trial of the Petitioner No.1 vide order dated 13.04.2016 passed in B.A.No.461 of 2016;

(iv) The learned Judge shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31.01.2017.

8.

The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)