Dismissed

Kamlesh Ashrafilal Jaiswal and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2012WP/28/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal writ petition challenged the First Information Report under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The High Court perused the material and allegations between the parties but found no grounds to interfere in the investigation at that stage. The petition was dismissed as no interference was warranted under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

No interference in the investigation by the Investigating Agency; petition dismissed.

Kamlesh Ashrafilal Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 Cri.W.P.28.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.28 OF 2012

¶4

Kamlesh S/o Ashrafilal

¶5

Jaiswal and others. ...PETITIONER.

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶8

 and others ...RESPONDENTS.

¶9

...

¶10

 Mr.S.T.Veer Advocate for Petitioners

¶11

 Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
 Mr.R.M.Sharma,Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 T.V.NALAWADE, JJ.

¶14

 DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶15

PER COURT :

¶16

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. The petitioners pray for quashing and setting

¶18

aside the First Information Report No. 3011 of

¶19

2011, dated 24th December, 2011, registered at

¶20

Hingoli Police Station, Hingoli, Tq. and District

¶21

Hingoli, to the extent of offence under Section

¶22

2 Cri.W.P.28.12

¶23

3(1)(x) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

¶24

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short "Act of 1989").

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the complaint was lodged by respondent No.3
to give counter blast to the complaint filed by
the petitioners against respondent No. 3 and

¶26

others, on 23rd December, 2011, in respect of
assault, which took place allegedly at about 8.30

¶27

a. m. in front of "Mangal Karayalaya", which is
run by the petitioners' family.

¶28

4. Learned counsel submits that the FIR does not

¶29

disclose ingredients of offence under the Act of
1989. There is delay in lodging FIR. The learned
counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on
the following cases;

¶30

(i) Karansingh and others Vs. The
State of M.P. reported in 1992
Cri.L.J. 3054,

¶31

(ii) H.N.Venkatesh and other Vs.

¶32

3 Cri.W.P.28.12

¶33

State of Karnataka reported in 2002
Cri.L.J. 328,

¶34

(iii)Athimula Grounder and another
Vs. State of T.N. reported in 2007
Cri.L.J. 271.

¶35

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3
placed reliance on the case, Ashabai Machindra

¶36

Adhagale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others

¶37

reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1605 and submitted that
since last few years, relations between the
parties are strained on account of allegations
made against each other. The learned counsel
submits that just because the complaint was lodged
after a day, it cannot be said that there was
deliberate delay with intention to falsely
implicate the petitioners and others.

¶38

6. Learned APP submits that due to order of

¶39

stay, passed by this Court, on 13th January, 2012,
Investigating Agency could not proceed further to
investigate.

¶40

4 Cri.W.P.28.12

¶41

7. We have perused the judgments cited supra.

¶42

We have also perused the complaints filed by the
petitioners and respondent No. 3 against each
other and also perused the application bearing
Misc. Application No. 452 of 2011, filed by the
petitioners for anticipatory bail, which came to
be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Hingoli. The petitioners preferred Criminal
Application No. 82 of 2012, before this Court for
anticipatory bail, which came to be withdrawn by
the petitioners, on 10th January, 2012.
Thereafter, this petition is filed on 12th
January, 2012.

¶43

8. Prima facie, considering the material placed
before us and the allegations made by the
petitioners and respondent No.3 against each
other, we are not inclined to interfere in the
investigation at this stage. We do not express any
opinion on the allegations made by the petitioners
and respondent No. 3 against each other.
Investigating Agency to investigate the offence in

¶44

5 Cri.W.P.28.12

¶45

accordance with law.

¶46

9. In exercise of extra ordinary Writ

¶47

Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶48

of India, no interference is warranted at this
stage. The petition stands dismissed.

¶49

 Sd/- Sd/-

¶50

[T.V.NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶51

MTK

Kamlesh Ashrafilal Jaiswal and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Ashrafilal Jaiswal and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaji Shivkant Hatte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammed Rehman Khan Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Jyoti Devrao Mhaske @ Jyoti Jaychand Kasliwal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Prakash Mohan Patil, C.No. 3978 Vs the State of Mah

John Paul Anthony Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhijeet Ashok Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah and Anr.