Bombay High Court
MOHAMED ASHFAQ CHAWNIWALAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed that the trial magistrate may consider impleading Respondent No.2 at the stage of recording the statement under Section 313, and may invoke Section 319 if evidence so requires.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohamed Ashfaq Chawniwala, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to have Respondent No.2 impleaded as an accused alongside him in Criminal Case No. 253 of 2016. He contended that he was not responsible for the alleged crime and that Respondent No.2 should also be charged. The Court noted that the petitioner may raise this defence during the trial, specifically at the stage of recording his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court directed the trial magistrate to consider invoking Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. if the evidence warrants it. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with the above directions.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be used to direct the trial court to implead an additional accused in an ongoing criminal case
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313, 319
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- impleading accused
- Section 313
- Section 319
- writ petition
- Article 226
Judgment
KSG 28-Wp-1837-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2017
Mohamed Ashfaq Chawniwala … Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr … Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Siddharth Wakonkar for Petitioner.
Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Hemlata Vaje, P.S.I. attached to Charkop Police Station, Mumbai.
_______________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 10th September 2026
P.C. :
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioner is seeking a direction to implead Respondent No.2 as an
accused alongwith the Petitioner in CR No.253 of 2016, dated 18 th August,
2016, registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai.
2) Perusal of record indicates that, it is the defense of the Petitioner
that, he himself is not responsible for commission of the said crime, but the
Respondent No.2 is also responsible for it.
3) The Petitioner will be at liberty to adopt appropriate defense in
the trial of the said case before the learned trial Court, at the stage of
1/2
KSG 28-Wp-1837-2017.doc
recording the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.. The learned
Magistrate may thereafter consider to invoke the provisions of Section 319
of Cr.P.C., if the evidence on record so prompts to do it.
4) Petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
( KAMAL KHATA, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KIRAN SANJAY
SANJAY GHUGE
GHUGE Date:
2026.09.22
10:48:46
+0530
2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.