Order 1

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C.C.No.3343/PW/2018
State of Maharashtra
(Through Amboli Police Station), ….Prosecution
V/s.
Harman Surjeetsingh Shekho …. Accused
ORDER ON DISCHARGE APPLICATION FILED BY ACCUSED
(Passed on 18/03/2026)
The accused who is alleged to have committed the offence
punishable under section 509, 345, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code
has filed this application for discharge under section 239 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure on the ground that there is delay in FIR and the
investigating officer did not record the statement of independent
witnesses and recorded the statement of only police officials. According
to the accused, he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Hence,
this application came to be filed.
2. The learned APP strongly opposed the application on the
ground that sufficient material is available against the accused to frame
charge against the alleged offence. According to the prosecution, the
offence is against women and her sole testimony is sufficient to prove
the offence. It is submitted that the informant stated the reason for
lodging FIR against the accused at belated stage. Hence, it is the stand
of the prosecution that unless and until the prosecution witnesses are
given a chance of being heard, the accused cannot be discharged.
3. Having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, I
perused the record.
4. According to the accused, the investigating officer did not
record the statement of the other persons except the informant and
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Vinay and therefore, there is no evidence against him. But I am not
inclined to accept this submission at this stage because it is settled that
the quality of evidence is always preferred rather than the quantity of
evidence.
5. Moreover, it is settled that the statements recorded by the
investigating officer are the blank papers unless and until they are
proved in accordance with law. In the present case on hand, the
witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
statements of the witnesses are false.
6. It is the stand of the accused that the investigating officer
recorded the statements of only police officials and therefore, the case is
not made out. But I am not inclined to accept this submission because
there is no bar to record the statement of police officials if they are
acquainted with the facts of the case. Moreover, there is no restriction
to take the evidence of the police officials. Hence, this objection is not
sustainable.
7. So far as the another stand regarding lodging of the FIR at
belated stage is concerned, I am of the opinion that the informant stated
in her police statement that she had narrated the incident to one person
namely Mussin. Apart from this, the trial is yet to be commenced.
Therefore, the prosecution can explain the delay in lodging FIR during
the course of trial. Hence, at this juncture, only on the point of delay in
lodging FIR, the accused cannot be discharged from the serious offence
regarding the outrage of the modesty of the informant who is woman.
8. In short, prima facie it appears that the allegations are well
founded and there is sufficient material to proceed further in this
matter. In other words, in my opinion, the charge against the accused is
not groundless. In such circumstances, in my opinion, unless and until
the prosecution is given a chance of being heard, this application cannot
-- 2 of 3 --
3
be entertained. Thus, the accused has not made out the case under
section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resultantly, I pass the
following order:
O R D E R
The application stands rejected.
Sd/-
( Sujitkumar C. Tayde )
Date : 18.03.2026 Judicial Magistrate First Class,
44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --