Writ petitioner prosecuted respondents for caste atrocity offences under IPC and SC/ST Act. Court held revision order by Additional Sessions Judge was proper and allowed the petitioner no further opportunity to prove stringent ingredients. Petitioner's writ petition dismissed.
Petitioner's writ petition dismissed.
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.
vrd 1 WP1992/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1992 OF 2013
Sou Sulochana Balkrishna Kharat ...Petitioner
v/s
Shri Sanjay A. Honmane and ors. ...Respondents
Mr Prashant Hagare for Petitioner.
Mr A.R. Patil, APP for Respondent No.5.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.
DATED : 18TH JULY 2013.
P.C.:-
1.The petitioner prosecuted the respondent
Nos.1 to 4 by R.C.C. No.161/2007 before the learned
JMFC, Baramati for offence under sections 323, 504,
339, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and 3(1)(viii), (ix), (x)
and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989. The
learned JMFC dismissed the complaint for offence
under section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and for offence
under sections 3(1)(viii), (ix), (x) and 3(2)(vii)
of the said Act against all the accused. The
vrd 2 WP1992/13
petitioner challenged the order dated 23rd December
2011 before the learned Additional Sessions and
District Judge, Baramati and by order dated 22nd May
2012 allowed the revision, setting aside the order
dated 23rd December 2011 and directed the learned
JMFC to give an opportunity to the petitioner to
produce witnesses and thereafter record evidence
considering the matter on the point of issuance of
process.
2.The order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions and District Judge in the set of above
details was just and proper. It cannot be said
that there was any misinterpretation of law. It
was expected from the petitioner to make out a case
for the stringent provisions of the said Act or for
offence under sections 504, 509 of IPC. The order
of the learned Additional Sessions and District
Judge does not call for any interference. Writ
petition is dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the Additional Sessions and District Judge allowing revision is just and proper worth interfering with.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the revision order that set aside the dismissal of the complaint and directed issuance of process.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sou Sulochana Balkrishna Kharat
Shri Sanjay A. Honmane
K.U. CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court