High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an FIR involving a caste-atrocity offence. The court noted the petitioner already had anticipatory bail and refrained from interfering with the investigation. All questions were kept open without expressing a final opinion.
Writ petition disposed of; order forwarded to Investigating Officer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
cwp90.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.90 OF 2012
Vasant s/o Manikrao Biradar,
Age-46 years, Occu:Service as
Principal of Mahatma Phule
Mahavidyalaya, Ahmedpur,
Dist-Latur.
...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Ahmedpur, Tq-Ahmedpur, Dist-Latur,2) Sow. Kalpana w/o Gopalrao Taywade, Age-46 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Nagoba Nagar, Ahmedpur, Tq-Ahmedpur, Dist-Latur....RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.V.D. Gunale Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri.V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri. Pradeep Deshmukh Advocate h/f. Shri.
H.A. Joshi Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.
DATE : 20TH MARCH, 2012
cwp90.12
2
PER COURT :
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.The Petitioner challenges the First
Information Report. The Petitioner is a Principal
of a College. The First Information Report (for
short "F.I.R.") was registered for an offence
punishable under Sections 354, 204, 606 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (xi) of
Schedule Castes and ScheduleTribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3.Shri. Gunale, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner submits that lodging of F.I.R.
is outcome of the memos issued by the Petitioner
to the complainant, during the course of
maintaining discipline in the affairs of the
College. The learned counsel submitted that while
discharging duties in the responsible post like
cwp90.12
3
Principal, the Petitioner cannot think of making
allegations against caste of a person with a view
to commit an offence, as alleged against the
Petitioner by the complainant.
4.On behalf of the complainant, it was
submitted that conduct of the Principal, is
blameworthy. At this stage, it would not be
appropriate to enter into disputed questions of
fact for ascertaining whether the complaint filed
against the Petitioner itself was tenable or not.
As investigation is in progress, the counsel
submits that parties will have to await the
outcome of the investigation.
investigation is in progress and in the facts of
the case and material collected so far, it would
not be reasonable and proper to set aside the
investigation would be completed and an
cwp90.12
4
appropriate report, in accordance with law, would
be filed.
6.We have considered the submissions
advanced. We refrain ourselves from observing in
respect of the allegations made against the
Petitioner and counter allegations made in respect
of the incident in question, as the investigation
is in progress. The Petitioner has already been
protected by the order of the anticipatory bail,
passed by the trial Court. Therefore, at this
stage, we are not inclined to interfere in
exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. At the same time, we observe that the
Petitioner is at liberty to resort to appropriate
remedies as permissible in law, after completion
of the investigation. All questions are kept open.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed
any final opinion, in respect of the incident in
question, filing of F.I.R.
cwp90.12
5
7.With these observations, the Writ
Petition is disposed of.
8.The Registry is directed to forward copy
of this order to the Investigating Officer,
forthwith.
[T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
asb/MAR12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in a writ petition challenging the filing of an FIR pending investigation where the petitioner is already granted anticipatory bail.
Whether the court should express any final opinion on the allegations made against the petitioner or the tenability of the complaint at this stage.
Whether the investigation pending precludes the imposition of conditions for filing an FIR in a caste-based offence case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vasant s/o Manikrao Biradar
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Ahmedpur
Sow. Kalpana w/o Gopalrao Taywade
NARESH H. PATIL
T.V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court