Allowed

Dr. Satish Shah and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2010WP/1847/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners appealed against an FIR under the SC/ST Act. After police investigation concluded no offence under that Act, petitioners sought to withdraw the writ petition. The court allowed withdrawal with liberty to pursue other remedies and reserved questions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue other remedial measures as may be available in law.

Dr. Satish Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 W.P. NO.1847-10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1847 OF 2010

¶5

Dr. Satish Shah & Anr.

¶6

..Petitioners.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Satish Borulkar i/b. Ajay Law Associates for petitioners.

¶11

Mr. R.N. Kachave with V.V. Pai for respondent No.3.

¶12

Mr. D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for respondent-State.

¶13

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2010

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

This matter has been placed under the caption 'for settlement'. The respondent No.3 is in the employment of Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal of which the petitioner No.1 is the trustee and petitioner No.2 is principal. Considering the background in which the complaint came to be filed by the respondent No.3 against the petitioners, we had suggested to the respondent No.3 and the petitioners to amicably resolve all their differences. It however, transpires that the respondent No.3 is not interested in any settlement with the petitioners.

¶17

2 W.P. NO.1847-10

¶18

The respondent No.3 is present in the Court. In spite of counselling by his Advocate, respondent No.3 does not want to settle the matter with the petitioners. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.

¶19

The respondent No.3 lodged a complaint for offences punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Section 7 of the Civil Rights Act, 1955 read with other offences under Indian Penal Code in connection with the incident in question. The Police investigated that complaint and have reached to a conclusion that no offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been made out against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer has already submitted his report in this behalf before the appropriate Court. In other words, if that report were to be accepted by the Court, the matter will proceed against the petitioners only for the offences punishable under section 7 of the Civil Rights Act, 1955 and sections 342, 323 & 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of this development, the petitioners do not want to pursue the petition at this stage. Instead, they seek leave to withdraw the petition to pursue other remedy as may be available in law. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. All questions are kept open.

¶20

(U.D.SALVI, J.)

¶21

(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Dr. Satish Shah and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Satish Shah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kantilal Oswal Vs Suresh M. Chiplunkar and Ors.

Sanjay Bapuso Sasne Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharanappa Annappa Patil and Anr. Vs Vasantrao Govindrao Takhalk

Navnath Gaibi Karale Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Shivaji Hindurao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kishor K. Mehta Vs Narendra K.Mehta and Ors.