Dismissed

Malini Johri v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2011WP/471/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Writ Petition challenging a summons under Section 91 CrPC issued to a college principal to produce an Attendance Register of ineligible students during an investigation into rioting and ransacking. The court held that the Attendance Register was not relevant as the investigation did not allege unreasonable denial of hall tickets.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with observations that the Attendance Register was not relevant to the investigation into rioting and ransacking.

Malini Johri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 wp47111

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 471 OF 2011

¶5

Malini Johri ...Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel, with Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar i/by M/s. Mandekar & Co. for the Petitioner

¶9

Ms. S.V. Gajare, A.P.P., for the State

¶10

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND

¶11

A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 25TH FEBRUARY, 2011

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

This petition takes exception to the summons issued under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Senior Inspector of Police, Andheri Police Station, Mumbai, to the Principal, Chinai College, Andheri (East), Mumbai. That summons has been issued in connection with offence on the complaint of one Subhash Chandrakant Ugale vide C.R. No. 59/2011 under Sections 143, 145, 147, 149, 324, 427 and 448 of

¶14

the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act.

¶15

2 wp47111

¶16

By the said notice, the Principal of the college has been directed to appear before PI Bhalerao or the signatory to the notice along with the documents specified in the notice, viz., the documents such as list of students who are declared ineligible to appear for the examinations, Attendance Register pertaining to information of students who are declared ineligible to appear for the examinations and any other document pertaining to the said issue.

¶17

Insofar as the direction to appear before PI Bhalerao is concerned, we have no difficulty in upholding the said direction, as such direction can be issued by the police officer during the course of investigation of a case. The case pertains to allegations regarding rioting and ransacking of the premises of the college. The investigation of said offence is in progress. The cause of the incident is stated to be on account of agitation by the students, who were not allowed to appear for the University examinations on the ground that they were ineligible, having failed to keep the requisite attendance during the academic year. In that context, the Investigating Officer may be anxious to know the names of the students,who were not permitted to appear for the University examinations, so that those students can be questioned and their statements recorded during the course of investigation. In that

¶18

3 wp47111

¶19

sense, there is nothing wrong in the Investigating Officer having called upon the Principal of the college to furnish list of students who are declared ineligible to appear for the examinations.

¶20

However, in our opinion, the requirement of producing documents relating to Attendance Register pertaining to the attendance of the students, who are held not eligible to appear for the examinations - in the context of investigation pertaining to the incident of rioting and ransacking of the college premises, is inapposite. It would be a different matter, however, if the allegation is against the Principal or other officials of the college being responsible for the situation due to unreasonably refusing to allot Examination Hall Tickets to those students, even though they had, in fact, attended the college from time to time. That fact can be ascertained only from the Attendance Register. As a matter of fact, in ordinary course of business, the University must have verified the relevant records of the college before refusing the Hall Tickets to ineligible students. In other words, that enquiry must have already been made by the concerned Authority.

¶21

Be that as it may, considering the nature of allegation in the complaint, which is being investigated, the Investigating Officer would

¶22

4 wp47111

¶23

be free to proceed in the matter to enquire into all aspects. However, if the allegation in the complaint is only about rioting and ransacking of the college premises, the enquiry will have to be directed to find out as to whether the ineligible students were responsible for that situation or otherwise. For that investigation, the Attendance Register of the students would not be relevant.

¶24

The learned A.P.P., on instructions of PSI Rahul Katwani,

¶25

who is present in Court, in all fairness, submits that there is no allegation in the complaint that the students were unreasonably denied Examination Hall Tickets, even though they had kept the requisite attendance during the academic year.

¶26

In view of this submission, the petition is disposed of with the above observations.

¶27

A.R. JOSHI, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Malini Johri v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malini Johri v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Vinod Ganpatrai Khamitkar and Anr. Vs Ravi Kripalsingh Talreja and Anr.

Asha Mayala Sunnar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vitthal Vajir Solanki Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Damodar @ Balasaheb Dnyaneshwar Molak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mansoor Iqbal Khot Vs Samina D/O Hasan Bangi and Anr.

Shri Vasant Mangu Pawra Vs the State of Maharashtra