DAMODHAR JAGNNATH LOKHANDE Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties finally, by consent.

(2.) Present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside charge-sheet i.e. the proceedings in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2006 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.

(3.) The case has a chequered history and therefore, we would like to consider the history first. The offence came to be registered vide Crime No. 242 of 2005 with Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon against two unknown persons on the basis of First Information Report (for short "the FIR") given by one Mahendra P. Mahajan, under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It was stated that one Mr. V.G. Patil was killed by thosetwo unknown persons. During the investigation two persons were arrested - (1) Raju Mali and (2) Raju Sonawane, on 25/9/2005. Thereafter the matter was investigated by State C.I.D., and even the petitioners came to be arrested in that matter and later on they were released on bail. The petitioners had preferred two different applications for quashing the proceedings initiated against them bearing Criminal Application Nos. 3331 of 2005 and 298 of 2006, respectively. During the pendency of those applications charge-sheet was filed. Those applications came to be allowed after hearing the parties concerned and the FIR as well as charge-sheet was quashed by this Court on 3/2/2006 in respect of both the petitioners. The order passed by this Court was then challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State by filing Criminal Special Leave Petition No.2918 of 2006. However, that Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed. It appears that the widow of the deceased V.G. Patil i.e. Smt. Rajni Patil had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.646 of 2005 before this Court for request of transfer of the further investigation from State C.I.D. to Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). That petition came to be allowed. Then the widow of the deceased filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1278 of 2007 before the Principal Bench at Mumbai for monitoring the further investigation handed over to C.B.I. During the pendency of said writ petition; second supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Raju Mali and Raju Sonawane in pending Sessions Case No.8 of 2006 by C.B.I., on 10/6/2008. Third supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed on 6/10/2008 wherein the present petitioners were added as accused. That supplementary charge-sheet was committed to the Court of Sessions. The petitioners had also filed intervention application in Criminal Writ Petition No.1278 of 2007. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 18/7/2009. The petitioners had then moved an application for quashing supplementary charge-sheet against them by filing Criminal Application No.3679 of 2008 and also for stay to the Sessions trial against them. After hearing both the sides, the said application came to be dismissed on 15/10/2009. However, when prayer was made that the petitioners want to challenge the said order before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the earlier protection i.e. stay to the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge was extended till 16/11/2009. Taking note of the stay, an order came to be passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, who was dealing with the Sessions Case No.8 of 2006, regarding separation of trial in view of the fact that accused Raju Sonawane was under-trial prisoner since 2005. Prior to passing the said order of separation of the trial, the other accused, namely, Raju Mali had expired on 6/4/2007. Therefore, the trial proceeded only against accused No.2 Raju Sonawane for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed on 15/10/2009. In the meantime the petitioners had also filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 19/12/2009 for discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, that application came to be rejected on 11/3/2010. The said order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Writ Petition, however, that was got withdrawn by the petitioners. The story does not end here. It appears that the widow of the deceased had moved an application to the Sessions Court for adding two more persons, namely, Gajendrasing Patil and Dr. Ulhas Patil to be arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 6. When that application came to be allowed, those two added persons have preferred Criminal Revision Application Nos.165 of 2014 and 3749 of 2014. This Court had then stayed the sessions trial against those persons. It appears that the Criminal Revision Applications are still pending, which were preferred by those added accused persons. The trial Court proceeded only against original accused No.2 - Raju Sonawane and convicted him for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Said Raju Sonawane preferred appeal before this Court bearing Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2015. This Court (CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.) has set aside the said conviction by Judgment and order dtd. 17/2/2023. Respondent No.1 herein had preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, that stood dismissed by order dtd. 27/9/2023.