SARIKA JYOTIBA GURAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable and heard with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) Brief facts leading for filing the present application are as under:-

(3.) It is further the case of the Applicant that, even after the charge sheet was filed, supplementary statement of Respondent No. 2 and the witness Tulsa Jadhav were recorded. Those statements were never brought on record by the State as per provisions of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."). Learned Additional Sessions Judge without considering provisions of Section 173 and 225 of the Cr.P.C., accepted those additional statements tendered by Respondent No. 2, and has passed the impugned order. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 had filed the application for adding Sections 376 and 313 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") against the Accused. Said application was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Respondent No. 2 challenged the said rejection order before the High Court, and the High Court set aside the said order and directed Investigating Officer to add section 376 of IPC against the Accused. Respondent No. 2, neither while in making application to add Section 376 of IPC nor while filing petition in the High Court, pleaded that the applicant be added as an accused. However, surprisingly when Respondent No. 2 succeeded in petition filed in the High Court, said application came to be filed just to harass the Applicant. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2, without adhering to the mandate of Section 225 of the Cr.P.C., filed the application for adding the Applicant as co-accused, which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25th March 2019. Hence, the present criminal application.