Bombay High Court

SANTOSH KEDARNATH MANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Allowed
Bench: SANDESH D PATIL

Holding

No interference is warranted; the application seeking to challenge the framing of charge is dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Santosh Kedarnath Mane, filed a criminal application seeking interference with the order of framing of charge in his case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that a chargesheet had already been filed and the matter was set for trial, with charges already framed. The court held that no interference was warranted in the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, the application was disposed of. The court clarified that the applicant remains free to file a suitable proceeding challenging the charge-framing order if advised.

Issues considered

Whether the court can interfere with an order of framing of charge when the charge has already been framed and the trial is set.

Subjects

criminal procedure
framing of charge
interference
application dismissed

Judgment

                                                            57-APL-745-2023 (CR).doc




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 745 of 2023

Santosh Kedarnath Mane                           .....Applicant
     Vs.
The State of Maharashtra                         .....Respondent

                                 .....
Mr. Jaydeep Mane, for the Applicant.

Mr. S. V. Gavand, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.
                                     .....

                                        CORAM: SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
                                        DATED: 2nd JULY 2026.
P. C. :

1.        Learned A.P.P. informs that already chargesheet is filed and the

matter is set for trial. Since the charge is already framed, therefore, no

interference is warranted in the impugned Judgment and Order. Hence,

Criminal Application No.745 of 2023 is disposed of.



2.        It is made clear that, the Applicant will be at liberty to file

appropriate proceeding challenging the order of framing of charge, if so

advised.


                                                  (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)


Manisha                             1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…