Allowed

Anilram Manishankar Padiya v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2013WP/55/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which rejected a police report without giving reasons. The bench directed the Magistrate to consider the report, accept or reject it with reasons, and pass a fresh order. The decision emphasized that simplicitor rejection of a police report is against principles of fair play.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Magistrate to consider police report, accept or reject with reasons, and pass fresh order if needed.

Anilram Manishankar Padiya Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

WP.55/2011(8)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 55 OF 2011

¶6

Anil Manishankar Padiya Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra at the instance of Sr. Inspector of Police Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai.

¶8

...Petitioner (Orig.Accd)

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Mr. Abad Ponda i/b. Santosh Chari for Petitioner Mr. Surendra Sonawane for Respondent No.2 Ms. S. Gajre-Dhamale APP for the State

¶11

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 4^TH APRIL, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Rule. Made returnable forthwith.

¶14

The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 40^th Court, Goregaon, Mumbai dated 23^th September, 2010 rejecting the police report directed to be given upon the initial complaint of respondent No.2 and recording the statement the original complaint and the doctor who had examined her upon her case of the offence under Section 376 of IPC against the petitioner.

¶15

Her initial complaint came to be filed as a private complaint as case No.126/S/10 on 10^th July, 2008. The learned Magistrate passed an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The investigation was done upon her

¶16

WP.55/2011(8)

¶17

¶18

complaint lodged against the petitioner on 18^th September, 2008.

¶19

A detailed police report came to be filed on 30^th January, 2009 by the Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai. Nevertheless the learned Magistrate has passed this order wholly ignoring the police report upon the observation that the police failed to take cognizance on the complaint of respondent No.2 and filed a “B” summary.

¶20

Accordingly the learned Magistrate recorded her statement as also the medical evidence. He directed process to be issued on 23^rd September, 2010.

¶21

The order of the learned Magistrate dated 23^rd September, 2010 impugned in this writ petition does not deal with the detailed police report. It does not show why the police report is totally discarded. The learned Magistrate could have recorded the verification of respondent No.2 and the medical evidence upon her private complaint itself. However since the learned Magistrate initially did not record her verification and called for police report, he was enjoined to consider the police report and why it has to be discarded which was his privilege to it.

¶22

The consideration of the police report and rejecting it would require reasons to be given. The reasons must show the lack of bona fides, if any, in the police report. The Magistrate would be then entitled to proceed.

¶23

WP.55/2011(8)

¶24

¶25

My attention has been drawn by Mr. Ponda to the case of Mr. Suhas Balkrishna Desai & Ors. vs. Chandrakant Ramchandra Parab & Ors. 2000 ALL MR (Cri.) 1537 in which reasons are held material to be given and that simiplicitor rejection of the police report is held to be against the principles of justice and fair play since taking cognizance is indeed a serious matter implicating a citizen of an offence, and in this case an offence as serious as under section 376 of the IPC.

¶26

Consequently the consideration of the learned Magistrate upon the detailed police report submitted to him is imperative to obtain.

¶27

Hence the impugned order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40^th Court dated 23^rd September, 2010 is set aside upon remand of the matter to the Magistrate with the direction to the Magistrate to consider the police report and to accept or reject the report upon giving his own reasons and thereafter pass appropriate order to issue fresh process, if required.

¶28

10. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Anilram Manishankar Padiya v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilram Manishankar Padiya v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Jayshree Jagdish Gupta Vs Rumala Gupta and 2 Ors.

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Mr. Shantilal Chunilal Parakh and Anr.

Kailash Nath Gupta Vs Mrs. Jayashree Jagdish Gupta and Others

Sagar Sudhakar Shendge Vs Naina Sagar Shendge and Anr.

Sharayu Ashok Bansode Vs Ashok Narayan Bansode and Anr.

Anil Sidgonda Patil Vs Nita Anil Patil and Ors.