Partly allowed

Sandeep Ramdas Bhajibhakre v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2013WP/68/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order of process for Section 376-B IPC against the petitioner in a private complaint where ingredients of rape by a public servant were missing, holding that parallel proceedings for the same incident could not continue.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Judicial Magistrate issuing process for Section 376-B IPC against the petitioner was quashed.

Sandeep Ramdas Bhajibhakre Vs the State of Mah and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 68 OF 2013

¶3

SANDEEP RAMDAS BHAJIBHAKRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶4

... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri S.B.Talekar APP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri B.V.Wagh Advocate for Respondents 4 & 5 : Shri Abhaysinh K. Bhosale

¶5

CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: February 14, 2013 ...

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

1. Heard respective counsel.

¶8

Shri Talekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner points out that two separate proceedings regarding the same alleged incident are being initiated. A complaint filed by the complainant to the State Women Commission has ultimately reached the Police Commissioner, Aurangabad, on the basis of which, vide Crime No.155/2012, offence punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for the sake of brevity, hereinafter) is registered against the petitioner with Police Station Satara. Thereafter, a private complaint filed by complainant - very same Lady Police Constable - is registered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) as RCC No. 148 of 2013. Learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in the said private complaint has directed to issue process, vide order dated 16.1.2013, which reads as under:-

¶9

" 1. Miscellaneous application be registered as Regular Criminal Case.

¶10

Issue process in the form of bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/each against accused nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under

¶11

akl

¶12

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶13

¶14

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 68 OF 2013

¶15

Section 376(B) 323 and 292 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code on P.F. Returnable on next date.

¶16

Issue process in the form of summons against accused no.3 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code on PF. Returnable on next date."

¶17

After hearing both sides for a considerable time, in our opinion, merits of the case need not be examined for the present. However, since the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 376-B of IPC i.e. rape by a public servant with woman in his custody is not alleged the process could not have been issued for the offence punishable under Section 376-B of IPC against the petitioner. It was further submitted that two parallel proceedings regarding the same incident/s cannot be continued.

¶18

In our considered opinion, since the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 376-B of IPC are not alleged or made out in the private complaint i.e. RCC No.148/2013, order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) for issuing process in this regard and to that extent only, stands quashed to the extent of the petitioner alone with liberty to respondent No.5 to point out before the concerned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) as to whether any other offence than the offence punishable under Section 376-B of IPC is made out or not, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) may apply his mind, so far this submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5 - complainant is concerned and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶19

akl

¶20

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶21

¶22

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 68 OF 2013

¶23

Learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) may consider the prayer for amalgamation in view of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if such plea is raised by any of the parties.

¶24

6. Criminal Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶25

( M.T. JOSHI, J. ) ( S.B.DESHMUKH, J. )

¶26

akl

Sandeep Ramdas Bhajibhakre v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Ramdas Bhajibhakre v. the State of Mah 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

Dhondiba Nagoba Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naser Bin Sayyad Chaus Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Wahidkhan Yusufkhan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Nilkanth Dagadu Kedar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shaikh Mujib Shaikh Habib Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Abdul Rahim Isak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others