Bombay High Court
NEERAJ ASHOK KHATANHARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
A charge framed without first granting the accused a hearing is invalid and must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Neeraj Ashok Khatanhar, challenged the order dated 12 January 2026 in which the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, framed charges under Sections 69, 316(2), 318(4) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, without affording him a prior hearing. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging violation of the right to be heard and consequent prejudice. The court examined the Roznamas of 30 December 2025 and 12 January 2026, finding no record of any hearing of the accused before charge framing. Relying on precedents that mandate an opportunity of hearing before framing charges, the court held that the order and the framed charges were procedurally defective. Consequently, the court partially allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing a fresh hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge.
Issues considered
- Whether an accused must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before a charge is framed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 352, 69
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- right to be heard
- charge framing
- criminal procedure
- Article 226
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- procedural fairness
Judgment
7-.WP-1238-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1238 OF 2026
Neeraj Ashok Khatanhar … Petitioner
V/S.
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents
__________________________________________________________
Mr. Rohan Hogle, learned Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Poonam Bhosale, learned APP for the Respondent – State.
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 18th March, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Rohan Hogle, learned Advocate for the Petitioner
and Ms. Poonam Bhosale, learned APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Rohan Hogle, learned Advocate states that Respondent No. 2 is
a formal party to this Petition.
2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, the Petitioner assails the order dated 12.01.2026,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi,
Mumbai, (“Sessions Court”) in Sessions Case No. 724 of 2025,
framing charge against the Petitioner for the offences punishable
Arjun 1
7-.WP-1238-2026.doc
under Sections 69, 316(2), 318(4), and 352 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. In view of the limited challenge raised in this Petition,
reference is made to the bare/minimum facts as stated by Mr.
Roshan Hogle, learned Advocate for the Petitioner:-
3a. First Information Report No. 359 of 2025 was
registered against the Petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 69, 316(2), 318(4), and 352
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3.b Upon Investigation, Chargesheet was filed before
the Magistrate and registered as C.C. No.
5053/PW/2025. By Committal Order dated 16.12.2025,
records of C.C. No. 5053/PW/2025 were submitted to the
Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai.
3c. Roznama dated 30.12.2025 and 12.01.2026
reads as follows:-
Arjun 2
7-.WP-1238-2026.doc
Business : 30-12-2025 CORAM – H.H.J. SMT. ASHWINI
D. LOKHANDE, ADHOC JUDGE, CITY CIVIL
COURT AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE(C.R. No. 18) Sessions Case 724/2025
(CNR No.) APP Sudhir Sapkale for state
present. Accused not produced from JC. Adv.
for accused absent. Adj. for charge to 12-01-
2026. Judge
Next Purpose : Charge
Next Hearing Date : 12-01-2026
Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
Business : 12-01-2026 CORAM-H.H.J. SHREE N.D.
KHOSE, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R.
No. 18) Sessions Case 724/2025 (CNR No.
MHCC05-006921-2025) APP Sudhir Sapkale
for state present. Accused not produced from
JC(MCP). Adv. for accused absent. KB Later on
3.05 p.m. Accused produced from JC(MCP) on
VC. Exh.03 Plea of accused. Adj. for document
to 23.01.2026.
Next Purpose : Documents
Next Hearing Date : 23.01.2026
Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge
4. Grievance of the Petitioner is that charge was framed by the
Sessions Court without affording an opportunity of hearing to the
Arjun 3
7-.WP-1238-2026.doc
Petitioner. Mr. Rohan Hogle, refers to the Roznamas dated
30.12.2025 & 12.01.2026 to contend that the Petitioner was not
heard prior to framing of the charge. He specifically states that
charge was framed on 12.01.2026 without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, thereby causing serious
prejudice.
5. Ms. Poonam Bhosale, learned APP for the Respondent –
State on the basis of the records placed in this Petition viz. The
Roznama dated 30.12.2025 and 12.01.2026 submits that the
Petitioner apparently was not heard before framing of the charge.
6. Mr. Rohan Hogle states that the subject matter of this
Petition warrant traible case.
7. Roznama dated 12.01.2026 relied by Mr. Rohan Hogle, does
not record the Sessions court had heard the prosecution or the
Accused. Thus, the Petitioner had no opportunity. For this reason
alone, the order dated 12.01.2026 of framing charge against the
Petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. Useful reference
can be made to the view expressed in the case/s of Bharat Uttam
Arjun 4
7-.WP-1238-2026.doc
Rajurkar And Others v/s. The State of Maharashtra1, Zenon John
Pereira v/s. The State of Maharashtra And Anr.2, Khurshid Jaat
Imran Jaat v/s. The State of Maharashtra3, Ajay Arun Kumar
Chougule v/s. The State of Maharashtra4, Ambadas Kashirao
Kharad v/s. The State of Maharashtra5, Wasumati Ashok Thakre
And Another v/s. The State of Maharashtra 6, Sheikh Rashid v/s.
The State of Maharashtra And Another7 and Sanjay Hariram
Agarwal v/s. The State of Maharashtra And Another. 8 wherein this
Court has held that an opportunity of hearing is required to be
afforded to the Accused prior to framing of the charge.
8. In view of the above, the present Petition is partly allowed
on the following terms :-
a) Order dated 12.01.2026 impugned in this Petition as
well as the charge as framed against the Petitioner, stand
quashed and set aside.
1 Criminal Writ Petition No. 1232 of 2017 decided on 12.01.2018.
2 Writ Petition No. 5915 of 2025 decided on 18.11.2025.
3 Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2025 decided on 24.02.2025.
4 Criminal Application No. 1298 of 2018 decided on 04.12.2019.
5 2007 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 881.
6 Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2010 decided on 12.08.2010.
7 Criminal Revision Application No. 74 of 2024 decided on 02.07.2024.
8 Criminal Writ Petition No. 77 of 2026 decided on 13.01.2026.
Arjun 5
7-.WP-1238-2026.doc
b) Petitioner shall appear before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, Mumbai on 27.03.2026.
c) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, Mumbai
shall pass an order on framing of charge after providing
an effective opportunity of hearing to the Prosecution and
the Petitioner (Accused), in accordance with law.
d) No order as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.03.24
21:28:07
+0530
Arjun 6
Checking your session…