ARUNA v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 319
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 407, 420, 506
Judgment
Mr.Sudhir Diwan, Petitioner in person. Mr. P.P. Malshe, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. 24th MARCH 2026 DATE : P.C.:
Heard the Petitioner in person.
When the Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the challenge to the order passed by the learned Magistrate declining to exercise the power under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short “Cr.P.C.”) on the premise that the complainant has yet the evidence, Petitioner/complainant in person seeks leave to withdraw the Petition with liberty to revive the prayer for summoning the additional accused under section 319 of the Cr. P.C. as well as Talwalkar framing of charges against the accused for the offences punishable under section 407, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
9.WP3331.2025.DOC after the complainant adduces his evidence.
A grievance is also made by the Petitioner that the evidence in the Complaint Case bearing C.C. No. SW/39/2019 is not being expeditiously recorded.
The Petition stands disposed with liberty to the Petitioner to revive the prayers to summon additional accused under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and frame additional charges under section 407, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, after the Petitioner adduces his evidence.
The learned Magistrate seized with C.C. No. SW/39/2019 is requested to commence and conclude the recording of the evidence of the complainant as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of 8 months from the date of communication of this order. Talwalkar
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 407, 420, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Mar 2026. The bench was N JAMADAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.