Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

MAHEMUDABEN W/O RAFIQ HASANBHAI GHOGHARIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal
26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE

Holding

The revision application is dismissed.

Summary

The High Court of Gujarat heard a criminal revision application filed by Mahemudaben challenging an order of a subordinate court in a double murder case. The applicant’s counsel argued that no case existed to even frame a charge, while the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the matter involved a double murder. After hearing both sides, the Court found no merit to entertain the revision but directed the trial court to consider Section 249 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and to allow the prosecutor to present the charge and evidence, ensuring equal opportunity for the accused. The Court ordered the trial court to conduct a proper opening of the case in conformity with the said provision. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the revision application should be entertained
  • Whether a charge can be framed in the absence of a case
  • Applicability of Section 249 of the BNSS, 2023 to the proceedings

Legislation cited

Subjects

criminal revisioncharge framingdouble murderBNSSSection 249procedural fairnessGujarat High Court

Judgment

   R/CR.RA/1831/2024                         ORDER DATED: 20/03/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
            SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1831 of 2024

==========================================================
          MAHEMUDABEN W/O RAFIQ HASANBHAI GHOGHARI
                           Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                        Date : 20/03/2026

                          ORAL ORDER


  1. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Maulik Soni
     submits that there is no case against the present
     applicant even to frame the charge.



  2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is a
     case of double murder.



  3. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
     parties, this Court does not %nd any reason to entertain
     the present application.     However, it is directed to the
     learned trial Court Judge to consider the provision of
     Section 249 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
     (BNSS), 2023, and the learned trial Court Judge is thus



                            Page 1 of 2
          R/CR.RA/1831/2024                                                         ORDER DATED: 20/03/2026




             directed to hear the learned Public Prosecutor with regard
             to opening of case in con%rmity under Section 249 of
             BNSS to describe the charge brought against the accused
             stating by what evidence, prosecution proposes to prove
             the guilt of the accused.                          The learned trial Court Judge
             would also give equal opportunity to the accused for
             hearing of the matter.



        4. With the above observations, the matter stands disposed
             of as dismissed.

                                                                                                     Sd/-
                                                                                                 (GITA GOPI, J)
   CAROLINE / DB # 37


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212), Principal pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/03/2026 16:28:56




                                                       Page 2 of 2


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "criminal revision"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.