Shobha Datatray Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

1. Looking	to	the serious natu	re of the allegations	made
in the	petition	, we had dire	cted Senior Inspector	of
Police, Panc	hwati	Police Station	to remain present	in
this court	today	at 11.00 a.m.	Accordingly, Mr.	Ashok
Patil, Senior		Inspector of	Police, Panchwati	Police
Station, is	pr	esent in the court.	We are surprised	at
the fact	that	the learned advo	cate for the peti	tioners,
who had ma	de a	serious grievance	about the conduct of	the
police on	the	last occasion, and	because of which we	had
summoned	the	Senior Inspector of	Police to the court,	is
not present	in	the court today.	However, since	the
Senior Inspec	tor	of Police is pre	sent in the court	to
instruct the learned pub with the matter.	lic prosecu	tor, we shall proceed
2. The	main	allegation of	the petitioners is	that
petitioner 1	was	raped by constable	Mr. J.T. Shelar	on

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

6/9/2002	after	midnight at	about	2.00	to	2.30	a.m.
According	to	the petitioners,		the	police	have	not
conducted	a	ny investigation in	respect	of	the	said	case
i.e.	C.R.	No.267 of	2002	regis	tered	under	section
376(2)	A-1	and 506 of the	Indian	Penal	Code.	It	appears
that	petitioner	2, the	husband	of	petitione	r 1	had
approached	the	Maharashtra S	tate	Human	Rig	hts C	ommission.
From	the	order 29/6/2005,	which	is	anne	xed to	the
petition,	it	appears that a	report	came	to	be	filed
before	the	Human Rights	Commis	sion	that	petitioner	1’s
complaint		against constable	Mr.	S	helar	was	investigated

¶17

and "B" Summary was granted by the Judicial Magistrate,

¶18

First Class, Nasik.

¶19

3. We are	informed by	the	learne	d public	prosecutor	that
no such ap	plication was	m	ade	before	the	learned
Magistrate and	no such "B"	Summ	ary	was grante	d and	this
report is	incorrect. We	are	also	informed	that	P.S.I.
Mr. Bawiskar	had wrongly	subm	itted	a report	that	"B"
Summary was	granted and	relying	on	that,	the	Deputy
Commissioner of	Police had	filed	the	said	report	before
the Human	Rights Commiss	ion.		The l	earned	public
prosecutor tells	us that P.S.I.		Mr.	Bhawisk	ar is	dead
and unfortunately	the papers	in C	.R.	No.267	of 2002	are
also lost and	an application	has	already	been	made to	the
concerned Magi	strate for	recon	struction	of	the	papers.
As directed	by the	learne	d	Magistrate,	an	affidavit
has been filed	by the	concern	ed	Investigating	Officer	and
the matter is	being p	rocessed.		The	learned	public

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

prosecutor	st	ates	that once the	proceedings	are
reconstructe	d,	the	case will be prope	rly inv	estigated.
We	hope	and	trust that police would tak	e the	necessary
steps	and	conduct	proper investigation. Lo	oking to	the
casual	manner	in	which this matter is han	dled so far,	we
are	apprehensiv	e that	the police may not do	so. We	are
amazed	at	the	fact that a wrong statement	should be	made
before	the	Human	Rights Commission that "B"	Summary	was
granted	by	the	Magistrate in a rape case.	We are	also
amazed	at	the fa	ct that all the papers of	the said	case
are	lost.	We d	o not wish to comment any	further on	the
conduct	of	the	police at this stage. But,	if we	find
that	the	police	repeat such irresponsible	behaviour,	we
may	have	to take	a serious note of it. We	may not	be
understood	to	have	expressed any op	inion that	the
complaint	of	the	petitioners is true. That	is a	matter
for	investig	ation.	However, the investigation	has to	be
done	properly.		The police should desist	from	adopting
such	a	careless	approach. The petition	is disposed	of

¶22

with the hope that the police will have a fresh look at

¶23

the matter and conduct proper investigation.

¶24

Copies of this order be forwarded to the Director

¶25

General of Police, State of Maharashtra and the

¶26

Commissioner of Police, Nasik.

¶27

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶28

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Shobha Datatray Chavan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Datatray Chavan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikant D. Karnik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shanu Ranchhod Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anthony Omondi Osino Vs Foreign Regional Registration Officer and Ors.

Nizamuddin Abdul Kadar Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju @ Appeal Anthony Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra

Girish Vinodrai Gandhi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.