Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Damodhar Jagnnath Lokhande and Liladhar Purushottam Narkhede, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2006 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. The case arose from the murder of V.G. Patil on 21st September 2005, initially registered as Crime No.242 of 2005 against unknown persons. During investigation, two persons, Raju Mali and Raju Sonawane, were arrested. The petitioners were also arrested but later released on bail. They had previously obtained quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet against them by this Court on 3rd February 2006, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the CBI, which filed a third supplementary charge-sheet on 6th October 2008, adding the petitioners as accused. The petitioners' earlier application for quashing this supplementary charge-sheet was dismissed on 15th October 2009, but stay was granted. The trial against co-accused Raju Sonawane proceeded separately, and he was convicted by the trial court. However, this Court (Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.) set aside his conviction on 17th February 2023, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the murder or any conspiracy. The Supreme Court dismissed the CBI's Special Leave Petition on 27th September 2023. The petitioners argued that the acquittal of Raju Sonawane, who was alleged to be the actual killer, and the finding that there was no evidence of contract killing, made it futile to continue the trial against them. The respondents opposed, arguing that the acquittal does not affect the case against the petitioners and that there is prima facie evidence against them. The court, after considering the chequered history, noted that the FIR against the petitioners had been quashed way back in 2006 and that order had attained finality. The court also observed that the trial against the petitioners had been separated from that of Raju Sonawane, and the acquittal of the latter on the same set of facts, particularly the finding that there was no conspiracy, would be binding. The court held that continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process of law and allowed the petition, quashing the charge-sheet and all proceedings against the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Charge-Sheet - Section 482 CrPC, Article 226 Constitution of India - Effect of Acquittal of Co-Accused - The petitioners sought quashing of charge-sheet in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2006 after the co-accused was acquitted by the High Court. The court held that continuing the trial against the petitioners would be an abuse of process as the prosecution case of conspiracy had failed, and the earlier quashing of FIR against them had attained finality. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Section 120-B IPC - Contract Killing - The prosecution alleged that the petitioners hired the co-accused to murder the deceased. However, the High Court in the appeal of the co-accused held that there was no evidence of contract killing. The court held that the same finding binds the petitioners, and no purpose would be served by a separate trial. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the charge-sheet and proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed in light of the acquittal of the co-accused Raju Sonawane and the earlier quashing of the FIR against the petitioners.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the charge-sheet and all proceedings against the petitioners in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2006 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- Effect of acquittal of co-accused on remaining accused
- Abuse of process of court
- Section 482 CrPC
- Article 226 Constitution of India
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (10) 231
Criminal Writ Petition No.848 of 2024
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, S.G. Chapalgaonkar
Mr. G.V. Wani for Petitioners, Mr. A.J. Patil for Respondent No.1, Ms. R.P. Gour for Respondent No.2, Mr. S.J. Salunke for Respondent No.3
Damodhar Jagnnath Lokhande and Liladhar Purushottam Narkhede
Central Bureau of Investigation, The State of Maharashtra, and Rajani Vishram Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing charge-sheet and proceedings in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2006.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the charge-sheet and all proceedings against them in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2006.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were added as accused in a supplementary charge-sheet filed by the CBI in a murder case. They sought quashing on the ground that the co-accused had been acquitted and the prosecution case of conspiracy had failed.
Previous Decisions
The FIR and charge-sheet against the petitioners were quashed by this Court on 3rd February 2006, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed adding them as accused. Their application for quashing that supplementary charge-sheet was dismissed on 15th October 2009. The co-accused Raju Sonawane was acquitted by this Court on 17th February 2023, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against that acquittal on 27th September 2023.
Issues
Whether the charge-sheet and proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed in light of the acquittal of the co-accused Raju Sonawane?
Whether continuing the trial against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of court?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the acquittal of Raju Sonawane, who was alleged to be the actual killer, and the finding that there was no evidence of contract killing, makes it futile to continue the trial against them. The earlier quashing of FIR against them had attained finality.
Respondents argued that the acquittal of Raju Sonawane does not affect the case against the petitioners and that there is prima facie evidence against them. The plight of the widow of the deceased should be considered.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the acquittal of the co-accused Raju Sonawane, who was alleged to be the actual perpetrator, and the finding that there was no evidence of conspiracy, coupled with the earlier quashing of the FIR against the petitioners which had attained finality, makes the continuation of the trial against the petitioners an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the charge-sheet and proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The first and foremost Judgment that is required to be taken note of, is the Judgment in Criminal Application No.3331 of 2005 with Criminal Application No.298 of 2006 decided by this Court on 3rd February 2006. ... That means even the FIR against the present petitioners or the said FIR, though the petitioner’s name was not there in the FIR, still it was quashed and set aside as against the petitioners.
This Court has re-assessed the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that said accused i.e. appellant therein, Raju Sonawane had committed murder of deceased V.G. Patil. It has also been held that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Raju Sonawane had entered into any conspiracy with anybody.
Procedural History
The offence was registered on 21st September 2005. The petitioners were arrested and later released on bail. They filed Criminal Application Nos.3331 of 2005 and 298 of 2006 for quashing, which were allowed on 3rd February 2006. The State's SLP was dismissed. The widow filed for transfer of investigation to CBI, which was allowed. CBI filed supplementary charge-sheets, including one on 6th October 2008 adding the petitioners. Their application for quashing was dismissed on 15th October 2009. The trial against co-accused Raju Sonawane was separated and he was convicted, but this Court acquitted him on 17th February 2023, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 27th September 2023. The present petition was filed on an unspecified date and decided on 23rd October 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482, Section 227
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302, Section 120-B
- Arms Act, 1959: Section 3 punishable under Section 25
