YOUSEF YAKUB LONDHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal application filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C"). In the year 2019, it was initially filed seeking following reliefs :-

(2.) On 25/9/2025, when the matter reached for admission, the learned APP invited our attention to one more order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench presided over by Hon'ble Chief Justice dtd. 9/9/2025 whereupon petitioner by expressly giving up the prayers pertaining to the challenge of First Information Report (for short "F.I.R") and charge-sheet and further seeking opportunity to pursue the matter only against the order of cognizance before the Single Judge, the petition was sought to be withdrawn. The Hon'ble Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice permitted withdrawal after relying upon Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules. These two orders of the Co- ordinate Benches passed at the Principal Seat were placed before us in which the former arose upon the petitioner expressly giving up his prayers and withdrawing the matter with liberty to challenge the order of cognizance before the Single Judge of this Court. Later suggested that once the cognizance is taken and the petition is under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C with or without aid of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the roster would require the matter to be placed before a Single Judge.

(3.) As we have come across several such petitions in past two weeks in which the cognizance has been already taken during the pendency of the criminal applications filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C and the frequency with such situations are arising with regards to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pradnya Kulkarni (supra) wherein it has been clarified the position that post filing of the charge-sheet and cognizance, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not lie but the application filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C does give jurisdiction to the High Court Division Bench to proceed with the hearing after appropriate amendments by way of challenging the order of cognizance and raising appropriate grounds in support of that challenge is made in the application. In view of the above mentioned two orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches from Principal Seat, we considered it appropriate to hear the Bar at some length on the question "Whether petitions contening composite prayers i.e., to quash the F.I.R, charge- sheet and the order taking cognizance pertains to be heard by a Division Bench or by a Single Bench under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960?"