1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 100 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3202 OF 2009 Chitra Anant Salunkhe .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtrta & ors. .. Respondents And Ashok Krishnaji Inamdar .. Applicant/ Intervener WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 103 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3202 OF 2009 Chitra Anant Salunkhe .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents And K. L. Bishnoi .. Applicant/ Intervener 2 Mr. V.B. Tiwari for applicant/Intervener in Cri. Application No. 100/2010. Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr. V.D. Katrak for applicant in Cri. Application No. 103 of 2010. Mr. P.A. Pol, PP for State in both the applications. Mr. V.M. Thorat for original petitioner in both the applications. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JUNE 14, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Tiwari, the learned counel for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 100 of 2010 and Mr. Shirish Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Katrak for the applicant in Criminal Application No. 103 of 2010. Mr. Pol, the learned PP, appears for the State of Maharashtra. 2. Both these applicants pray for being added as an intervener/respondent in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3202 of 2009. The applications have been opposed by Mr. Thorat and by referring to the decision in the case of Prabha Mathur and another vs. Pramod Aggarwal and ors. [(2008) 9 SCC 469], Mr. Thorat submitted that an accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation and he cannot insist for hearing before the process is issued against him. 3 3. The substantial prayer made in the Criminal Writ Petition No. 3202 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, reads as under:- “Call for relevant records and proceedings from the office of Respondent authorities and after going into the legality of the same, direct the Respondent police officers to forthwith register offence, in relation to the Final Year LL.B. Examination, committed by Incharge Principal of Respondent College in collusion with and/or with a view to help Bishnoi K. L. and for that purpose issue appropriate writ and/or order.” 4. As per the petitioner she was the examiner for the LL.B. 3rd year examination scheduled on 12/3/2005 and Mr. K. L. Bishnoi was one of the examinees. She further alleges that Mr. Bishnoi did not appear before her as an examinee and instead he was given marks by the incharge Principal Mr. Ashok Krishnaji Inamdar. The petitioner further alleges that Mr. Bishnoi never appeared for the viva voce / practical examination and still the incharge Principal marked him present, claimed to have conducted 4 his oral examination and also gave marks in the mark-sheet (Exh. “C”) at Sr.No. Ex.13. She also alleges that in the original sheet which was submitted to her, Mr. Bishnoi’s name was not typed and at the end of the sheet, his name was hand written by Mr. Inamdar. 5. On the face of these allegations and the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, we have no doubt in our mind that both Mr. Inamdar and Mr.Bishnoi are required to be heard by us while deciding Criminal Writ Petition No. 3202 of 2009. 6. Hence, we allow both the applications and direct the petitioner to implead the applicants/interveners as respondent nos.8 and 9 respectively. The petition memo be amended accordingly. Reply, if any, by the added respondents shall be placed before us within two weeks from today with an advanced copy to be served on Mr. Thorat, the learned counsel for the petitioner. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)