Dismissed

Narayan Dattatray Thopate and Anr. v. Vice Chancellor Dr Raghunath Shevgaonkar and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2013WP/1580/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition against Pune University for alleged offences in IPC. Single Judge dismissed petition as complaint was misconceived, grievances were civil disputes barred by Section 195 CrPC, and answer sheet issues require civil remedy.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no criminal proceedings against respondents allowed.

Narayan Dattatray Thopate and Anr. Vs Vice… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Tilak 1/3 (27)WP-1580-12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.1580 of 2012

¶5

Narayan D. Thopate & Anr ... Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Pune University and ors ... Respondents

¶8

Mrs.Nareem S.K. Ayubi, Advocate appointed for the petitioners. Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶10

DATED : JULY 9, 2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 Heard Mrs.Nasreem S.K. Ayubi, learned counsel appointed for the petitioners. Heard Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, learned APP for the State.

¶13

2 The petitioners are the original complainants. They had filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pune, against the Pune University including the Chancellor, ViceChancellor, Controller of Examination, the Information Officer, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Chatursingi Division, Pune City, alleging commission of offences purportedly punishable under sections 21(12), 24, 29, 34, 107, 119, 120a, 166, 176, 177, 179, 191, 192, 197, 201, 202, 203, 212, 218, 405, 415, 463, 463, 464 and 470 of the IPC.

¶14

Tilak 2/3 (27)WP-1580-12

¶15

3 The learned Magistrate observed that no offences were disclosed, and that the grievance of the petitioners was about the injustice done to them by the Pune University, which did not attract any penal liability. Holding so, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. The petitioners then moved the Court of Sessions in revision. They, however did not serve the copy of the original complaint, and the documents annexed thereto on the respondents (proposed accused), inspite of repeated directions given to them by the Court of Sessions. As such, the revision application was rejected by the Sessions Court. The petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of their complaint, as also by the order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing the revision application, and have therefore, approached this Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶16

4 With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners who was appointed to prosecute the petition under the Free Legal Aid Scheme, I have gone through the entire relevant record and compilation of the relevant documents filed by the learned counsel.

¶17

5 The complaint as filed by the petitioners before the Magistrate was misconceived. Apart from the fact that many of the sections of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) mentioned in the complaint do not relate to any offences, but are sections giving definitions of certain terms used in the IPC, some of the offences allegedly committed by the accused persons are such that their cognizance is

¶18

Tilak 3/3 (27)WP-1580-12

¶19

barred in view of provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

6 Apart from this, the grievances of the petitioners are to the effect that because of some disputes which they had with one Mr.Thorat - Principal, injustice is being done to them, and that, deliberately less marks are being given to them so that they fail in the various examinations for which they have been appearing. The conclusion of the learned Magistrate that the complaint did not disclose any offence, is proper and legal. The order passed by the revisional court also does not suffer from any infirmity or error.

¶21

7 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not being supplied with the xerox copies of their answer sheets though the rules of University provide for furnishing of such copies. If the petitioners are not being given the copies of what they are entitled for, the petitioners can have appropriate remedies in that regard by approaching the authorities concerned.

¶22

8 So far as the institution of criminal proceedings against the Pune University and its officers, as had been attempted by the petitioners, was without any merit, and the complaint filed by the petitioners has rightly been dismissed.

¶23

9 Petition has no merit. The same is rejected.

¶24

( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )

Narayan Dattatray Thopate and Anr. v. Vice Chancellor Dr Raghunath Shevgaonkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Dattatray Thopate and Anr. v. Vice Chancellor Dr Raghunath Shevgaonkar 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

Roshanara Patwekar @ Roshanara Nizamuddin Bustani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Sadashiv Marane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rashid Naseer Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Tukaram Sawant and Ors. Vs Veluswamy Trikau and Anr.

Vijay @ Sohan Raghunandan Prajapati Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayur Shivaji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra