A petitioner challenged an order directing prosecution, arguing that the matter was already decided and salary recovered, resulting in victimization. The court held that no illegality was demonstrated and a fair trial would be available.
The petition was rejected.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5749 OF 2013
Smt. Amena Tahseen d/o. Mohd Abdul Gaffar
.. PETITIONER/S
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and others.
.. RESPONDENT/S
Mr. Shrikant Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. V.A. Shinde, AGP for respondents.
CORAM :- A.H. JOSHI &
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE :- 18th July, 2013.
ORDER :-
1]The respondent No.2 has noticed that
petitioner is involved in criminal acts alongwith
other accused and hence, direction is given to
prosecute 4 persons named in the order including
the petitioner. He has, therefore, passed order
dated 5thJuly, 2013 (Exhibit G) which is
challenged in this petition.
2]Petitioner has raised the ground to
challenge the said order in ground No.(V), which
2
reads thus :-
“(V).TheRegionalDeputy
Director of Education, Aurangabad has not
considered that, the matter has already been
decided by the Hon'ble High Court Judicature
of Bombay bench at Aurangabad and the amount
of salary of Rs.1,23,320/- was recovered by
the Education Officer (Secondary), Z.P.
Aurangabad and hence, no grievance is
remained. However, the Deputy Director of
Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
has not taken the rational view because, the
petitioner is unnecessarily victimized. It
shows that, the decision of the Deputy
Director of Education, Aurangabad to file
criminal proceedings against the petitioner
is illegal and contrary to law. The
prosecution has been directed to be initiated
against the petitioner is quite illegal.”
[quoted from Ground No. (V) at page 8 of the
Petition paper book)
3]Illegality in the impugned order which is
averred in the petition and during oral
submissions, is not demonstrated with reference to
violation of any of the provisions of law or
statutory rule.
3
4]Moreover, the petitioner will get fair
trial in the event she is prosecuted.
5]In the result, the petition fails and the
same is rejected.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J][A.H. JOSHI,J]
grt/-.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing prosecution against the petitioner is illegal and contrary to law since the matter was already decided by the High Court.
Whether the Deputy Director of Education's decision to initiate criminal proceedings violates any provision of law or statutory rule.
Smt. Amena Tahseen d/o. Mohd Abdul Gaffar
The State of Maharashtra
A.H. Joshi
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court