Disposed

Vishnu Dattatraya Barve v. the District Superintendent of Police, Sangli and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2005PIL/26/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL concerned action under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 based on a purported news item. The Court held that following police inquiries finding the content incorrect, no further action was required.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissed; no further action required by the Court as police found the news item incorrect.

Vishnu Dattatraya Barve Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 26 OF 2005

¶5

Vishnu Dattatraya Barve.. Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The District Superintendent of Police
Sangli & anr

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Petitioner

¶10

Ms Jyoti Pawar, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent no. 1

¶11

Mr.Narendra Walawalkar with Mr.Sudhir Prabhu for
Respondent no. 3

¶12

CORAM : R.M. LODHA AND
D.G.KARNIK, JJ

¶13

DATED : 7th December, 2005

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the petitioner and
Ms.Jyoti Pawar, Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent no. 1.

¶16

2. The grievance raised by means of this Public
Interest Litigation relates to action against the
offending person/persons under section 2 of the
Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act,
1971. The grievance raised by the petitioner is
founded on a news item that appeared in the
vernacular newspaper "Loksatta supplementary"
dated 17th June, 2004.

¶17

¶18

3. From the affidavit filed by Mr. Dilip
Pandurang Jadhav, Police Inspector, Sangli Police
Station, Sangli it appears that the petitioner has
not lodged any first information report concerning
the crime under section 2 of the Prevention of
Insults of National Honour Act, 1971. However,
pursuant to the directions of this Court given on
28th July, 2004, the concerned Police Inspector
recorded the statements of six witnesses and he
found that the contents of the news item dated
17th June, 2004 that appeared in "Loksatta
supplementary" was totally incorrect. In view
thereof, we are satisfied that nothing is further
required to be done in the matter by us. However,
if the petitioner lodges any first information
report concerning the alleged crime, we observe
that the said first information report shall be
proceeded with and taken to logical conclusion in
accordance with law uninfluenced by the inquiry so
far held.

¶19

(R.M. LODHA, J)

Vishnu Dattatraya Barve v. the District Superintendent of Police, Sangli and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Dattatraya Barve v. the District Superintendent of Police, Sangli and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Public Concern for Governance Trust Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prajeshsinh I.Parmar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Vasant Krishnaji More and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dilip Vrajlal Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Mr.Sushan Kunjuraman Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balaram Kantha Patil and Ors. Vs Maaharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

The Nashik Nagrik Kruti Samiti Vs the Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation

m/s earth builders Vs dani sadan co-op hsg. society Ltd. and Anr.

mrs yasmeen fakir mohammed shaikh Vs aanib anthony d monte and Ors.

lokhandwala construction industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs taj lands end Ltd.

Vishnu Dattatraya Barve Vs the District Superintendent of Police, Sangli and Anr.

Sunil Bhimaji Khandale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shiva Kadam and Anr. Vs the Director and Ors.