CHANDAN SURAJ JAISWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vaswani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the Respondent No.1-State.

(2.) This Writ Petition is filed by Chandan Suraj Jaiswar i.e. accused No.1 and Suraj Vishwanath Jaiswar i.e. father of the accused No.1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dtd. 31/8/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai below Exhibit121 in Sessions Case No.316 of 2014. By the impugned order, the said Application bearing Exhibit-121 has been rejected. The Petitioner No.1 - Accused No.1 has sought the following reliefs in said Application bearing Exhibit-121:

(3.) The said Application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order dtd. 31/8/2023 on the ground that under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ("Cr.P.C."), the Court can proceed against any person not being the accused for any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused. Learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration Sec. 223 of the Cr.P.C., which makes provisions regarding the persons who can be charged and tried together. The learned Trial Court further observed that the allegations which are part of the Application bearing Exhibit-121 shows that the said instances have taken place after FIR was lodged against the accused and accused has raised the defence of extortion against the Informant and her husband. It has been further observed that these witnesses are not the accused persons in the FIR and that it is not part of the same transaction. On the other hand, the Informant is victim and her husband is witness of the prosecution.