Trial court can add the charge at any stage before completion of the trial
Gujarat High Court Case Information System BODY
SCR.A/802/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 802 of 2011
Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH =========================================================
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES
referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO
SANJAY PUNJWANI – Applicant(s)
OF GUJARAT & 2 – Respondent(s)
AR GUPTA WITH
MS NEETA PANDIT for Applicant(s) : 1, MR LR PUJARI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, SERVED BY RPAD – (N) for Respondent(s) : 2 – 3. MR KB ANANDJIWALA WITH MR GT DAYANI for Respondent(s) : 2 –
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
present petitioner has lodged complaint against the present respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Act. The present petitioner has not placed on record the copy of complaint.
Court has gone through the complaint as well as copy of chargesheet provided by learned advocate for the respondent, the same is ordered to be taken on record. Prima facie it is found that the chargesheet is filed for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of Dowry Act, but nothing is reflected in the complaint to show that the complaint is also filed for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to note that, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.11510 of 2010 dated 28.9.2010 the trial is required to be completed within one month by the trial court.
pursuance of the order passed by this court, charge was framed, and before framing of the charge, no application for further investigation nor adding of the charge is given by the complainant or by the prosecutor. After framing of the charge and when the trial has commenced, application for adding of charge Exh.13 has been submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant. This Court has gone through the said application. Prima facie, in the opinion of this Court, if the alleged offence is made out in reference to tampering of passport and visa then the petitioner should lodge complaint for the said offences. The question does not arise to add the charge in the said case for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 506(1) of the IPC. In the opinion of this Court, the said application is rightly rejected by the trial court and therefore the question does not arise to interfere with the said order and hence this application is rejected.
is also submitted by learned advocate Mr.Anandjiwala for the respondent that visa was cancelled by the competent authority at Sharjah as visa was issued in the capacity of spouse in the favour of the petitioner and the present respondent has not played any role for cancellation of visa and competent authority at Sharjah has cancelled the visa.
is also clarified that, during the trial, if the court satisfies and think fit then the court can add the charge at any stage before completion of the trial. The trial court is directed to decide and dispose of the case, as early as possible, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of writ of this order. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the both the parties that they will give full cooperation for conducting the trial smoothly. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
M.D. SHAH, J. )