12-APL-1688-2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1688 OF 2019

PRATHAMESH SITARAM LATNE AND ORS. )…APPLICANTS

V/s.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )…RESPONDENT

Mr.Tejas Hilage, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent – State.

CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.

DATE : 13th JANUARY 2020

P.C. :

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants

/accused in Sessions Case No.18 of 2018 for offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. By

drawing my attention to the Charge framed against

applicants/accused on 5th July 2018 for offences alleged against

them, it is argued by the learned counsel for applicants/accused

avk 1/5

::: Uploaded on – 14/01/2020 15/01/2020 00:10:58 :::
12-APL-1688-2019.doc

that provisions of Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for the sake of

brevity) are not followed by the learned trial court while framing

the Charge. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the order sheet

of the sessions case. It is further argued by the learned counsel for

applicants/accused that as the learned Single Judge of Nagpur

Bench of this court in the matter of Ambadas Kashirao Kharad vs.

State of Maharashtra1 has categorically held that compliance of

Sections 226 and 227 of the Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality and

the Sessions Courts dealing with sessions cases are bound to

comply with provisions of these sections in letter and spirit. He,

further, relied on judgment of the learned Single Judge of this

court in the matter of Rajukumar Girdharilal Yadav vs. State of

Maharashtra2 to buttress this contention.

2 I have considered the submissions so advanced and

also perused the charge-sheet apart from the order sheets of the

learned Sessions Court.

1 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1916
2 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2053

avk 2/5

::: Uploaded on – 14/01/2020 15/01/2020 00:10:58 :::
12-APL-1688-2019.doc

3 On 6th June 2017, Mohini married applicant no.1

Prathamesh Latne. She was a student of Computer Engineering

and was taking education at D.K.T.E. College, Ichalkaranji, at the

relevant time. It was a love marriage between the parties. Mohini

committed suicide on 17th August 2017 at her matrimonial house

by hanging herself. Postmortem report shows that she died within

two months of her marriage by asphyxia due to hanging. The

First Information Report (FIR) came to be lodged on 18 th August

2017 by Uddhav Halde, maternal uncle of Mohini Prathamesh

Latne. In that FIR, categorical averments regarding subjection of

Mohini to cruelty and abetting commission of her suicide by

applicants are made. Dying declaration in the form of chit

allegedly written by Mohini was also seized by the prosecution

during investigation vide Panchnama dated 22nd August 2017.

After recording statement of witnesses and compliance with

necessary formalities of investigation, applicants were charge-

sheeted.

avk 3/5

::: Uploaded on – 14/01/2020 15/01/2020 00:10:58 :::
12-APL-1688-2019.doc

4 On 2nd May 2018, in presence of applicants/accused,

the learned Sessions Court was pleased to adjourn the sessions

trial for framing of Charge. Roznama of the next date i.e. 5 th July

2018 shows that in presence of accused persons and that of

learned APP, Charge came to be framed. Section 226 of the Cr.P.C.

provides that the prosecutor is required to open the case of

prosecution and then as provided by Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.,

after considering the record of the case and after hearing

statement of the accused and prosecution, if the Judge considers

that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused,

he can frame Charge. In the case in hand, roznama reflects

presence of the learned APP before the court. There is nothing in

the roznama to show that the learned Judge had not permitted

the accused persons to make their submissions in the matter. It is

for the accused to avail this opportunity of making their

submissions. Undisputedly, Charge was framed in presence of the

accused persons.

 avk                                                                    4/5

::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2020    15/01/2020 00:10:58 :::

                                                                12-APL-1688-2019.doc
 5                That apart, I have perused the entire charge-sheet.
 The charge-sheet is reflecting sufficient grounds to proceed
 against the accused persons i.e. the applicants. Therefore, no case
 for interference is made out.

                  The application is, therefore, rejected.
                                                (A. M. BADAR, J.)
 avk                                                                        5/5
::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2020        15/01/2020 00:10:58 :::