Dismissed

Smt Maya W/O Kaka Dupare v. State of Maharashtra through SP Chandrapur and Another

Bombay HC23 Jul 2012WP/205/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for additional charge and reinvestigation under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was dismissed as there was no merit to warrant interference in the pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. Adjacent application for production of documents allowed.

Smt Maya W/O Kaka Dupare Vs State of Maharashtra through SP… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

wp205.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 205 OF 2012

¶5

Smt. Maya W/o. Kaka Dupare, aged about 42 years, Occupation : Labourer, R/o. Indira Nagar, Mul Road, Chandrapur, Tahsil & District : Chandrapur.

¶6

…. PETITIONER .

¶7

…..VERSUS.....

¶8

State of Maharashtra through S.P. Chandrapur.

¶9

Dr. Rafik Bhavani, Ghutkala Ward, Chandrapur, Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur.

¶10

…. RESPONDENTS .

¶11

__________________________________________________________________ Mr.Kishor D. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Sonare, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents-State.

¶12

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ.

¶13

DATED : JULY 23, 2012.

¶14

ORAL ORDER :

¶15

P.C.

¶16

This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India basically for challenging order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class 7^th Court, Chandrapur dated 15.02.2012 rejecting application at Exh.29 filed by the present petitioner seeking framing of additional charge under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

¶17

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶18

¶19

wp205.12

¶20

On the basis of report lodged by the petitioner an offence was registered under Sections 337, 294, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The chargesheet accordingly was filed and it was registered as Regular Criminal Case No.2889 of 2010. The evidence in the criminal case commenced and a large number of witnesses had been examined. The examination-in-chief of the petitioner itself was recorded, however, the cross-examination was deferred. Ultimately, on behalf of the petitioner an application at Exh.29 was filed ostensibly under Section 202(3) read with Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for reinvestigation by a competent police officer on the ground that an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had been committed and consequently the only officer authorized under the Act was empowered to investigate the aforesaid offence. The trial Judge by an order dated 15.02.2012 rejected the aforesaid application. The trial Court found that in the first information report there were no allegations or any material which would disclose commission of the offence under the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial Court further came to the conclusion that even the examination-in-chief of the petitioner did not disclose commission of the aforesaid offence. The trial Court ultimately came to the conclusion that merely because the complainant was a person belonging to either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, automatically the provisions of the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be invoked. Necessary ingredients in respect of the aforesaid

¶21

¶22

wp205.12

¶23

offence has not been established at all by the petitioner. The trial Judge, therefore, accordingly rejected the aforesaid application.

¶24

Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. Viswanadula Chetti Babu , reported at AIR 2011 SC (Criminal) 1932, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should be investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and investigation done by the Sub-Inspector was not proper. In the present case, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment would not apply, as, according to the trial Court, there were no ingredients in respect of commission of the offence under the provisions of the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial Judge has further observed that even the examination in chief of the petitioner did not disclose commission of the aforesaid offence.

¶25

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. Upon such perusal, according to us, we do not find any case to warrant interference in the present writ petition. The evidence in the trial Court has already commenced and evidence of large number of witnesses has already been recorded.

¶26

¶27

wp205.12

¶28

In the light of what has been observed by us above, we do not find any merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶29

CRI.APPLN. (APPW) NO.69/2012 .

¶30

By this application the petitioner seeks to produce certain

¶31

documents.

¶32

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶33

accordingly allow this application.

¶34

JUDGE JUDGE.