Dismissed

Rupali Rajendra Agarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jul 2008WP/1639/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench disposed of a criminal writ petition challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings. The Court held the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and refused to entertain the petition or order an independent investigation, directing the petitioner to send a representation to the Superintendent of Police instead.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; prayer for independent investigation rejected; petitioner directed to make representation to Superintendent of Police, Pune; interim orders vacated.

Rupali Rajendra Agarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1639 OF 2007

¶5

Rupali Rajendra Agarkar

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Rajiv Patil i/b Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. V.V. Purawant for respondent 2.

¶12

Mr. Rahul Rate for respondent 3.

¶13

Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Public Prosecutor with Ms. U.V. Kejriwal, A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.

¶15

DATED : 22ND JULY, 2008.

¶16

P.C.:-

¶17

On 4/7/2008, this petition appears to have been heard at length. The Division Bench headed by Justice B.H. Marlapalle

¶18

passed the following order :

¶19

1. We have heard Mr. Raju Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.R. Patil, learned APP. We have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by Shri Satish Shankarrao Patil who was the Investigating Officer in the case. Wee have also perused the investigation papers.

¶20

AJN

¶21

¶22

2. We have indicated to Mr. Raju Patil our reluctance to entertain this petition and therefore Mr. Patil sought time to take instructions to withdraw the suit. Time granted.

¶23

3. S.O. to one week”.

¶24

On 15/7/2008, this petition appeared on the board of the Division Bench to which one of us (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) was a party. This court directed the concerned police officer from Baramati City Police Station to remain present in the court along with the record of the case. The petitioner, respondent 2 and respondent 3 were also directed to remain present in the court.

¶25

Accordingly, today, the concerned police officer of Baramati City Police Station as also the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 are present, in the court.

¶26

We have heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that in view of order dated 4/7/2008 he is not rearguing the petition. He, however, states that prayer (e) of the petition may be considered. It reads thus:

¶27

AJN

¶28

¶29

“(e) this Hon' ble Court further be pleased to direct any other independent investigating agency to conduct fair and impartial investigation into the present case and to submit the report thereof to this Hon'ble Court within time bound programme.”

¶30

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was, without any reason, taken by the police to Mahila Ashram, Baramati and she was forced to file a complaint. Therefore, some independent investigating agency must examine the conduct of the police and bring them to book.

¶31

We have heard Mr. Borulkar, learned Public Prosecutor and we have perused the affidavit of Satish Shankarrao Patil, Inspector of Police, presently attached to Haveli Police Station. In paragraph 10 of the said affidavit, it is stated that the police admitted the petitioner in Prerna Mahila Ashram at Baramati after obtaining her consent and also the consent of her mother and grandmother. Mr. Borulkar made a serious grievance that despite this court's order dated 4/7/2008 which we have quoted hereinabove, an effort is made to re-argue the case. He submitted that the complaint which the petitioner wants to be quashed cannot be quashed inasmuch as it clearly discloses a cognizable offence. He submitted that by

¶32

AJN

¶33

¶34

praying for a direction that some independent agency should conduct the investigation, the petitioner is trying to malign the officers who have independently investigated the crime and filed the charge-sheet. Mr. Borulkar submitted that respondents 2 and 3, who are accused in the case were absconding. He submitted that they are present in the court today because of the direction issued by this court.

¶35

We have noted that the earlier Bench did not find any substance in the petition and, in its order dated 4/7/2008, it has noted its reluctance to entertain the petition. However, in order to satisfy our conscience, we have carefully gone through the complaint and we are of the considered opinion that the petition cannot be entertained because the complaint cannot be quashed. It cannot be said that the complaint which is sought to be quashed does not disclose any cognizable offence. That prayer of the petitioner must be rejected and is rejected as such.

¶36

So far as prayer (e) of the petition is concerned, in the facts of the case, we do not feel it appropriate to pass any such order. However, if the petitioner is so advised, the petitioner may make

¶37

AJN

¶38

¶39

appropriate representation to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Pune, setting out her grievance. If such a representation is made, the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Pune, will consider it independently and in accordance with law and, if necessary, take appropriate steps. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the petitioner's case on which prayer (e) is based. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶40

Needless to say that in view of the disposal of the petition, the interim order stands vacated. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 states that respondents 2 and 3 shall remain present in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati on 1/8/2008 at 11.00 a.m. If any application is made by respondents 2 and 3 for any interim relief, Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, shall consider it independently and in accordance with law.

¶41

[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

¶42

[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Rupali Rajendra Agarkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupali Rajendra Agarkar 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

Kishor Kirtilal Mehta Vs Vijay Kirtilal Mehta and Ors.

Jyoti Prakash Haswani Vs Prakash Pinionmal Haswani

The Director of Income Tax (Intermational Texation) Mumbai Vs Sajjan Kumar Jajodia

Bastyav Jaki Pinto and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raosaheb Baliram Maher Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raosaheb Baliram Maher Vs the State of Maharashtra