Case Note & Summary
The matter originated from an FIR lodged on 28 January 2014 by the complainant alleging rape and other offences against the petitioners under Sections 376, 377, 307, 392, 452, 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During trial, the accused filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alleging that between 05 February 2016 and 14 March 2016, the complainant and her husband demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the accused's father and assured that the complainant would not testify if the money was paid. The accused sought to summon the complainant and her husband as co-accused for extortion. The trial court, by order dated 31 August 2023, rejected the application, holding that the alleged extortion occurred after the FIR and was not part of the same transaction, and therefore the witnesses could not be tried together. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 3280 of 2024. The High Court heard submissions from both sides. The petitioners contended that Section 319 CrPC does not require the offence to be part of the same transaction and relied on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. The State opposed, arguing that the offences were distinct and the witnesses were the victim and her husband, and thus could not be tried together. The court set out the relevant legal provisions but the provided extract ends before the final order, leaving the outcome unknown.
Headnote
{ "headline": "High Court of Bombay Judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3280 of 2024", "lawPoints": "Not mentioned", "issueOfConsideration": "Whether the order dated 31-08-2023 rejecting Application Exhibit-121 in Sessions Case No. 316 of 2014 is legal and proper", "headnote": "Not mentioned", "summary": "The petitioners, Chandan Suraj Jaiswar (accused No. 1) and his father Suraj Vishwanath Jaiswar, filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging an order dated 31 August 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 316 of 2014. By that order, the application (Exhibit-121) filed by accused No. 1 was rejected. The nature of the application and the grounds for rejection are not disclosed in the provided excerpt. The High Court heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. The judgment, dated 30 June 2025, was delivered by Justice Madhav J. Jamdar. The excerpt provided only the preliminary paragraphs and did not reveal the court's final decision or reasoning.", "case_details": { "case_title": "Bombay High Court Hears Criminal Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Application in Sessions Case. The petition contends error in order dated 31 August 2023, but the excerpt does not disclose the nature of the application or the court's final ruling.", "appellant": "Chandan Suraj Jaiswar and Suraj Vishwanath Jaiswar", "respondent": "The State of Maharashtra & Ors.", "court": "High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction", "case_number": "Criminal Writ Petition No. 3280 of 2024", "judge": "Madhav J. Jamdar", "advocate": "Mahesh Vaswani, Shreya Tiwari, Aishwarya Kadam, Lakshita Fatnani, S. H. Yadav", "date": "2025-06-30", "citation": "2025:BHC-AS:27959-DB", "cases_referred": [] }, "acts_sections": [], "major_acts": [], "sections_cited": [], "latin_terms": [], "keywords": ["Criminal Writ Petition", "Rejection of Application", "Sessions Case", "Exhibit-121", "Bombay High Court"], "facts": { "nature_of_litigation": "Criminal writ petition challenging an interlocutory order rejecting an application in a sessions case.", "remedy_sought": "To set aside the impugned order dated 31-08-2023 and allow the application Exhibit-121.", "filing_reason": "The application Exhibit-121 filed by petitioner No.1-accused No.1 was rejected by the Sessions Court, prompting the writ petition.", "previous_decisions": "The order dated 31-08-2023 by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, rejecting Exhibit-121 in Sessions Case No. 316 of
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the application under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning the complainant and her husband as accused for extortion in a rape trial
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
