Bombay High Court

BHIMRAJ S/O. MOGAL SONAWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed as moot, but the trial court may add a charge under the SC/ST Act if evidence is placed on record.

Summary

The petitioner, Bhimraj Sonawane, filed a criminal writ petition challenging proceedings against him, arguing that the trial was ongoing and the petition was therefore moot. He also suggested that the trial court could add a charge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 if relevant evidence were produced. The Court examined whether a writ petition remains maintainable when the substantive trial is pending and considered the scope for adding a new charge under the SC/ST Act. It held that the petition had become irrelevant as the trial was in progress and therefore could not survive. However, the Court clarified that the trial court retains the authority to incorporate an additional charge under the SC/ST Act if evidence supporting such a charge is placed on record. Consequently, the petition was disposed of as moot.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal writ petition remains maintainable when the trial of the offence is ongoing.
Whether the trial court can add a charge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 based on evidence.

Legislation cited

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Subjects

criminal law
writ petition
SC/ST Act
charge addition
mootness

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40044-DB

                                                                             2116.19WP

                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        17 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2019

                              BHIMRAJ S/O.MOGAL SONAWANE
                                         VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

                                                  ...
                          Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.U.A.Sayyed h/f.
                                         Mr.K.N.Shermale
                           APP for Respondent-State : Mr.G.A.Kulkarni
                                                  …

                                       CORAM :       SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                     VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                       DATE      :   31.08.2026


                 P.C. :


                 1]          Mr.U.A.Sayyed,    learned    counsel   holding       for

                 Mr.K.N.Shermale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

                 that since the trial of the offence is going on, nothing

                 survives in this petition. However, he further added that the

                 trial Court may add charge under the provisions of the

                 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of

                 Atrocities] Act, 1989.



                 2]          However, it is made clear that if the evidence to

                 that effect is placed on record, then the trial Court can take
                                                      2116.19WP

                              2

cognizance of it and add the charge. It appears that nothing

survives in this Petition and the same stands disposed of.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]           [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
        JUDGE                          JUDGE


DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…