Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Jamshed Jal Menesse, filed a criminal complaint against respondents No. 2 and 3 alleging forcible eviction from a flat between 15/8/1986 and 15/9/1986. A chargesheet was filed and charges under Sections 341, 451, 454, 457, 380 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code were framed on 13/11/1999. Before any prosecution evidence was recorded, the respondents filed an application on 13/01/1999 seeking closure of the prosecution case and discharge under Raj Deo Sharma (I). The trial court allowed the application. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that the directions in Raj Deo Sharma (I) apply only after the prosecution has commenced leading evidence. Since no evidence had been recorded, the application was premature. The appeal was allowed, the trial court's order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial from the stage of recording prosecution evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Closure of Prosecution - Raj Deo Sharma (I) - Premature Application - The accused filed an application for closure of prosecution case under Raj Deo Sharma (I) before any prosecution evidence was recorded - The trial court allowed the application - Held that the benefit of Raj Deo Sharma (I) cannot be claimed before the commencement of prosecution evidence, as the directions in that case apply only after the prosecution has begun leading evidence - The application was premature and the order was set aside (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application for closure of prosecution case and discharge of accused under Raj Deo Sharma (I) when the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 15/6/1999 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai is set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial from the stage of recording of prosecution evidence and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
Law Points
- Raj Deo Sharma (I) applies only after prosecution evidence has commenced
- premature application for closure before commencement of evidence is not maintainable
- warrant case instituted on police report governed by CrPC provisions
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (06) 68
Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2000
Mrs. Lata Desai, Dr. Ms Pallavi Divekar, Ms Shraddha Varhal for appellant; Ms G. P. Mulekar, A. P. P. for State; None for respondents No. 2 and 3
The State of Maharashtra, Subhash S. Patil, Smt. Shridevi S. Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against order allowing closure of prosecution case and discharge of accused under Raj Deo Sharma (I).
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of the trial court's order dated 15/6/1999 allowing closure of prosecution case and discharge of respondents No. 2 and 3.
Filing Reason
The trial court allowed the application of respondents No. 2 and 3 for closure of prosecution case under Raj Deo Sharma (I) before any prosecution evidence was recorded.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai) allowed the application on 15/6/1999.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application for closure of prosecution case and discharge of accused under Raj Deo Sharma (I) when the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that there were justifiable reasons for not commencing recording of prosecution evidence as there was an agreement between the parties regarding another criminal case under Section 145 CrPC.
Respondents No. 2 and 3 sought benefit of Raj Deo Sharma (I) claiming that the prosecution had not commenced evidence within the time frame.
Ratio Decidendi
The benefit of the directions in Raj Deo Sharma (I) cannot be claimed before the commencement of prosecution evidence. The application for closure of prosecution case was premature as no evidence had been recorded. The trial court erred in allowing the application.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 15/6/1999 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, thereby allowing the application filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 in Criminal Case No. 491/P/94 seeking closure of the prosecution case and discharge/release from the case in view of the law laid down in Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar – 1998 CRI. L.J. 4596.
The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal may be stated in brief as under.: There was some dispute in respect of forcible eviction of the appellant from a flat by the respondents No. 2 and 3 going on between the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 in the year 1986.
The application was vehemently opposed by the appellant, who was the complainant through the learned A.P.P., who was representing the complainant before the Court, it being a warrant case instituted upon a police report.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a complaint in 1986 leading to registration of offences. Chargesheet was filed and charge framed on 13/11/1999. On 13/01/1999, respondents No. 2 and 3 filed an application for closure of prosecution case under Raj Deo Sharma (I). The trial court allowed the application on 15/6/1999. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2000 in the High Court of Bombay against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 341, 451, 454, 457, 380, 120B
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 145
