Petitioner sought writ under Article 226 directing Army authorities to initiate action against officers for alleged harassment and failure to maintain discipline. The Court noted alternative remedies under Army Act and private complaint mechanism, found disputed facts, and declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction, dismissing the petition.
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.
agk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.367 OF 2013
Mr.Mandeep Singh ..Petitioner. Versus
Brig S. Sabhrawal and others ..Respondents.
Mr.R.K. Pai for the petitioner. Mrs.A.S. Pai, APP for the State. Mr.Rajesh Desai for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5.
CORAM : S.C. Dharmadhikari & G.S. Patel, JJ. DATE : 17th September 2013
P.C. :
1 of 6
Vipin Kumar in derogation of Section 320 (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The other reliefs are that the Chief of the Army Staff should initiate action against Brigadier S. Sabhrawal for failing to maintain discipline at station Devlali as mandated by Regulation 23 of the Regulations. Then, the relief is to direct the Union of India or the Chief of the Army Staff for initiation of action against Lt Col Vipin Kumar, who compounded the noncompoundable offences committed by persons under his command, harboured the offenders and acting in contravention of Regulation 316 and 317 of the Regulations and SAO 6/S/2000. Prayer clause (d) of the writ petition is as under :
“(d) this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to direct the competent authority of the State to initiate action against the SHO Devlali Police Station for refusing to register the F.I.R. and also for compounding the offences in contravention of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973;”
2 of 6
p.m., the accused came in his Indica car and entered the shop, started using abusive language to the petitioner asking as to why the petitioner did not intimate him about the cost of repair of the laptop. The petitioner replied that he tried to contact him but his mobile was not responding. Angrily, accused No.1 left the shop and at 2.30 p.m. on 13th November 2012 came to the petitioner's shop along with one Officer and 13 Jawans. They ransacked the shop premises, destroyed the webcam, keyboards and laptop, extorted Rs.25,000/- and took away a mobile worth Rs.38,999/-. There are acts of alleged criminal intimidation and, which are referred to in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the writ petition.
3 of 6
repairing them as well as other equipments is not remediless. It has been clarified repeatedly that such persons can approach the Court of the Competent Magistrate and file a private complaint.
4 of 6
Headquarters, where the office of the Station Commander is located, for various requirements. There is no substance that he and his father ran from pillar to post in the complete town but made no attempt to come to the Station Headquarters and personally meet the respondent No.1 or any of his staff or the respondent No.3 with his grievance. The Station Headquarters are located barely 200 to 250 metres away from the petitioner's shop. Therefore, the petitioner has been filing a petition of this nature not to vindicate any genuine grievance but, to tarnish the image and reputation of the Army and, the officers and, particularly, at Deolali Station is the contention. It has been also mentioned in the reply that the petitioner on 14th November 2012 came along with his father to 289 SATA Battery. However, no timings have been deliberately indicated, as on that date the petitioner and his father went to the chamber of Lt Col R.K. Rai (retired). Therefore, they could not have been present at two locations at the same time. The allegations are, therefore, termed as false and baseless. The petitioner, in turn, has filed a rejoinder countering them.
5 of 6
undertake a scrutiny of these allegations and counter-allegations. Once the petitioner has an adequate and, equally efficacious remedy of approaching the Competent Criminal Court and, equally taking up his grievances in accordance with the Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, by approaching the superiors, who are in-charge of maintaining discipline in the Armed Forces, then, we do not wish to entertain the writ petition and, exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in the present facts and circumstances, when this jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary in nature.
10. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to direct military authorities to initiate action or initiate criminal proceedings when alternative adequate remedies exist under the Army Act and Cour
Whether the petitioner is remediless in approaching a Competent Criminal Court or filing a private complaint given the alleged difficulty under Section 125 of the Army Act, 1950
Whether the writ petition should be entertained considering the dispute over facts and the presence of an alternative equitable remedy
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mr.Mandeep Singh
Brig S. Sabhrawal and others
S.C. Dharmadhikari
G.S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
