M G WAGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner/original accused No. 9, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater bombay dated 23rd July, 1992, dismissing the Revision application No. 285 of 1990 made by the Petitioner for discharge.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Karkhanis for Petitioner and Mrs. Kajariwal, learned a. P. P. for quite some time. I have also perused the proceedings including the orders of both the Lower Courts. It appears that accused Nos. 1 to 9 were chargesheeted by Bhandup Police Station for offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The applications made by accused Nos. 1 to 8 for discharge were rejected. Accused No. 9 was the doctor, who admittedly was in the confidence of all the other accused. Admittedly, he was a Gynecologist, having his hospital at Jogeshwari. The incident of drinking / making the victim drink acid took place on 1 st June, 1985 at Mulund. It appears that accused Nos. 1 to 8 who are the husband, in-laws, sister-in-law, etc. respectively of the victim Vaijayanti Mangesh Borkar were harassing her. There is an elaborate complaint to that effect made by Vaijayanti. The application for discharge made to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund was rejected. Criminal Revision no. 285/90 also was rejected, wherein application for discharge was made by this accused. After reading both the orders, I do not find that the learned Additional sessions Judge, committed any error in rejecting the application for discharge made by the Petitioner. At the stage of framing of charge, what is to be looked into is whether there is any prima facie case against the accused and on this criteria, prima facie case against accused No. 9/petitioner does appear. Hence, no error is committed by the Additional Sessions Judge in rejecting the application for discharge. Hence, the following order : Ciminal Writ Petition No. 1045 of 1997 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted on 16th September, 1997 is here by vacated. Trial to proceed in accordance with law. Petitioner to appear before the lower Court on 5th May, 1999. Writ to go forthwith.