The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to provide the prosecution with an opportunity to prove their case based on the sufficiency of evidence, while also emphasizing the importance of expediting trial proceedings and avoiding unnecessary delays.

JUDGMENT

S.M. Modak, J. - This is the Petition for quashing filed by accused No.2 in a Sessions Case No.792 of 2016 pending before the the Court of additional Sessions Judge at Mumbai. It is for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, 452 read with 34, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. It is true that a Petition for quashing can be filed at different stages. One is when the investigation is at the stage of registration of FIR. Second, when FIR is registered and certain materials are collected during investigation. Third, when the investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. In this case, we are dealing with a case wherein charge-sheet has been filed and that charge against 4 accused is also framed on 15 February 2019.

2 By way of Interim application, son of the deceased is praying for impleadment. allowed the said application. We have heard learned Senior advocate Shri Chaudhary for the Petitioner accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri Chimalkar, for the Respondent-State. He relied upon the judgment in case of Rajiv Thapar Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330. We have also heard learned advocate Shri Niranjan Mundargi, who is for the Intervenor/son of deceased asha Goel. He relied upon the judgment in case of Bharat Parikh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 109. an offence is registered with Malbar Hill Police Station at the instance of one Sureshchandra agarwal. It is registered against unknown persons. His sister asha Goel was murdered in the intervening night of 22nd of august 2003 and 23rd of august 2003. The murder took place in Flat No.14-a, in which the first informant Sureshchandra agarwal resides. Though, needle of suspicion was pointed out towards the first informant Sureshchandra agarwal, he died prior to taking any action against him.

3 In all, there are 5 accused persons, out of them accused Subhash is wanted accused. The motive for commission of the murder is a property dispute. The case entirely rests upon circumstantial evidence. During investigation, there is no witness, who had seen the actual assault on the deceased. asha Goel was having three brothers and sisters. In this case, we are concerned with three brothers. Her father Ranchoddas was having various businesses. Some of them were situated in India, whereas some were abroad. Shekhar, Sureshchandra and Subhash are the three brothers. Shekhar has settled in United States of america for business during the lifetime of his father. Whereas another brother Subhash had gone to Canada also for doing business. Whereas another brother Sureshchandra was carrying on the business of manufacturing jewellery in the name of Candy Industries. So also he is running a lodge by name Little Lodge, V.P. Road, Mumbai. as per the prosecution's case, the main motive for murder is the property dispute. according to prosecution, both these brothers, by name Sureshchandra and Subhash have hatched a conspiracy to eliminate sister asha. There was a litigation pending in the High Court about the property dispute. The present Petitioner is working as an Manager in Candy Industries owned by Subhash agarwal wanted accused. Whereas, arrested accused Shri Parab and Shri Shinde were working in the Lodge owned by the deceased accused Sureshchandra. Whereas accused Narendra Goel is the son-in-law of the deceased accused Sureshchandra. This arrested accused Shri Parab has been granted pardon and he has become approver. The prosecution case mainly relies upon the confession.

4 Malabar Police Station registered the offence on the complaint of the brother Sureshchandra. It is against an unknown persons. Malbar Hill Police Station have recorded statements of certain witnesses. The Petitioner mainly focuses on withholding of those statements by the prosecution when a charge-sheet is filed. It was filed by DCB, CID, Unit No.II. Ultimately, the statements recorded by Malbar Hill Police Station were produced when the Petitioner insiste