Allowed

Priyani Prashant Pawar Nee Shobha Ramchandra Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2010WP/294/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Bombay High Court directed the respondent police to register an FIR immediately upon receipt of written complaints disclosing a cognizable offence, rejecting the argument that registration must await a Social Service Branch enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to Respondent No.1 to register FIR and proceed forthwith.

Priyani Prashant Pawar Nee Shobha Ramchandra Kadam… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

wp294.10

Ast

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.294 OF 2010

¶6

Mrs. Priyani Prashant Pawar. ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prakash Wagh, advocate for petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Sharif Shaikh, advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 7.

¶9

Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for State.

¶10

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ.

¶11

DATED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2010.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

By this Petition under Article 226, it is prayed that the Respondent Nos. 1

¶14

and 2 be directed to register FIR against the persons named in the written

¶15

complaints dated 21^st February, 2009 and 6^th May, 2009 respectively.

¶16

This Petition is resisted by the learned APP on the argument that the matter has been referred to the Social Service Branch, for which reason no steps have been taken with regard to the two written complaints given by the

wp294.10

Petitioner.

We are at a loss to know as to why registration of FIR should be kept in abeyance till the outcome of the process before the Social Service Branch. The concerned police officials to whom the communication has been addressed by the Petitioner was obliged to proceed in the matter by registering FIR, if the written complaints sent by the Petitioner disclosed case of cognizable offence. Indeed, it would have been a different matter, if the department were to take stand that the case on hand was covered by excepted category, for which reason, registration of FIR was kept in abeyance till the enquiry was to be completed. That is not the submission made before us. From the written complaints, which are appended to the Petition(Exh.B and Exh.D) respectively, it appears that the allegations contained therein would make out the case of cognizable offence. If so, the police official who had received the said written complaints ought to have acted on the complaints with promptitude. We are not suggesting that as soon as the FIR is registered, the named persons should be arrested. That procedure can wait till the process before the Social Service Branch is completed, one way or the other and only after tangible evidence to indicate complicity of the concerned persons comes on record.

¶21

wp294.10

¶22

¶23

Accordingly, we dispose of this Petition with direction to the Respondent

¶24

No.1 to register the FIR and proceed in the matter in accordance with law

¶25

forthwith.

¶26

(P.D.KODE, J.)

¶27

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Priyani Prashant Pawar Nee Shobha Ramchandra Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyani Prashant Pawar Nee Shobha Ramchandra Kadam 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

Kalavati Sadashiv Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahendra Tulsidas Bhutta Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Union of India Vs Mohamed Kunju Mohamed and Ors.

Vishal Subhashsingh Dharadhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alok Agarwal S/O Kesarinandan Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Majid Umar Hasid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.