Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 129/PW/2018
ORDER BELOW EXH.-3
Accused No.3 Alimuddin Afzaluddin Shaikh has filed present
application for discharging him as per the provision of section 239 of Code
of Criminal Procedure. According to accused he has no way concerned
with the alleged offence. He is working as journalist since last 20 years
and now he is owner and chief editor of Web News Portal by name Hallo
Mumbai News. The offence under section 323, 324, 384, 506 (ii), 120 (b)
r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered in police station
Santacruz, as C. R. No.323/2017. Accused arrested and he is now on bail.
According to accused No.3 there was dispute regarding construction
between accused No.1 and the informant. At the request of accused No.1
accused No.3 tried to intervene the dispute between them. Therefore, the
complainant has falsely put the allegations against present accused. It is
contended that, there is no iota of material in the chargesheet and the
documents submitted against the present accused. The offence punishable
under section 120 (b) of I.P.C. is not at all attracted against the present
accused. None of the witnesses supports to the complainant and said very
fact is transpired from the statement of witnesses in the chargesheet.
Accused never demanded any amount nor he threatened the complainant
therefore, accused is liable to be discharged as charge against accused is
groundless.
2. Ld. APP Shri Joshi resisted the application and contended
that, the chargesheet shows that, there are specific allegations which are
matched with the alleged sections of Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R.
discloses the name and actual involvement of accused. During
-- 1 of 4 --
C. C. No.129/PW/2018 ~2~ ORDER BELOW EXH.3
investigation electronic record was also seized by the police, which is
relating to the communication between informant and accused persons.
There is prima-facie case against accused therefore, application liable to be
rejected.
3. Heard Ld. Advocate Shri Shaikh for accused No.3 Ld. APP
Shri Joshi for the state. Perused the record.
4. The F.I.R. under section 323, 324, 384, 506 (ii), 120 (b) r/w
34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered in police station
Santacruz, as C. R. No.323/2017, as per the information given by the
informant. According to the informant present accused and other accused
demanded money from him and also threatened him that, if he has not
given money as demanded then they will made complaint to officials of
BMC in respect of the construction raised by the informant. It is further
alleged that, on 13/06/2017, accused persons came to the informant and
demanded amount of I5,00,000/-, one room in Juhu Koliwada, and one
digital camera. On 05/07/2017 two unknown person at the instigation of
accused persons beaten the informant. Therefore, the complainant has
lodged the report.
5. Ld. Advocate Shri. Shaikh submits that, accused No.3 is
journalist and chief editor of Web News Portal by name Hallo Mumbai
News. At the request of accused No.1 he tried to intervene the dispute
between accused No. 1 and the informant. However, the informant falsely
implicated the present accused/applicant in the false offence. He further
submits that, the chargesheet does not disclose any role of accused. The
charge is groundless therefore, accused be discharged by invoking
provision of section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his
-- 2 of 4 --
C. C. No.129/PW/2018 ~3~ ORDER BELOW EXH.3
arguments he relied on the case of Satish Mehra V/s. Delhi Administration
reported in 1996 (9) SCC 766, Wherein Hon’ble Apex Court laid down
that, for discharging the accused it has to be considered, as to whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the case.
6. Per contra, Ld. APP Shri Joshi submits that, the statement of
witnesses in chargesheet discloses the active participation of the accused
in the offence. The F.I.R. very well discloses meeting of minds of accused
persons for commission of an offence. The chargesheet sufficiently make
out the charges against the accused therefore, application be rejected.
7. I would like to state here that, the F.I.R. discloses the name of
accused in the present offence. Even it discloses that, on 08/06/2017 the
present accused and the other accused came to he home of accused and
threatened through the supervisor, who constructing the home of
informant and also threatened the informant that, if he did not fulfill their
demand then informant will face dire consequences. Further on
13/06/2017, accused came in to the home of informant and demanded
money from the informant.
8. Thus, the F.I.R. shows active participation of present accused
with other accused in commission of an offence. So far as, statements of
witnesses recorded by police during investigation are important. Witness
Pravin Patel, Deepak Mohan Thakur categorically stated to Investigating
Officer that, accused were extorting money from the informant. Even in
order to show the presence of present accused and other accused on the
scene of offence the informant has produced hard disc containing the CC
TV footage.
9. Therefore, the chargesheet discloses prima-facie active
involvement of accused in the offence. The charge is not at all groundless.
-- 3 of 4 --
C. C. No.129/PW/2018 ~4~ ORDER BELOW EXH.3
There is sufficient material available in chargesheet to proceed against
accused. Therefore, application deserved to be dismissed. So far as ratio
laid down in above Satish Mehra supra case is concerned, the chargesheet
discloses active involvement of accused in commission of offence
therefore, ratio laid down in above case is not applicable. Hence, I proceed
to pass following order.
ORDER
Application is rejected.
Date:03/06/2024.
SRD.
Sd/-
(A. B. Jadhav)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated on :- 03/06/2024.
Transcribed on :- 03/06/2024.
Checked on :- 03/06/2024.
Signed on :- 03/06/2024.
SRD
-- 4 of 4 --