Allowed

Pravin Santosh Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2013WP/758/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a discharge order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court held the order was illegal for ignoring allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act which had been previously noted in a quashing order. It remanded the matter to the Magistrate to consider if proceedings for dowry offences are maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of discharge was set aside. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to consider the dowry allegations and take appropriate action.

Pravin Santosh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

15 WP.758.11.doc

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2011

¶5

Pravin s/o Santosh Patil, Age : 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o : Sawarkheda, Tq. Parola, Dist.: Jalgaon. ... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Investigating Officer, F.I.R. No.89, dated 23rd May 2007, Police Station, Parola, Tq. Parola, District – Jalgaon.

¶9

Popatsing s/o Jalamsing Patil, Age : 60 years, Occ : Pensioner, R/o : 17, Jawaharnagar, Vaidya Colony, Sakri Road, Dhule, Tq. and Dist. Dhule.

¶10

Amol s/o Popatsing Patil, Age : 30 years, occ : Service, R/o : 17, Jawaharnagar, Vaidya Colony, Sakri Road, Dhule, Tq. and Dist. Dhule.

¶11

Ranjanabai w/o Popatsing Patil, Age : 58 years, occ : Household,

¶12

¶13

15 WP.758.11.doc

¶14

R/o : 17, Jawaharnagar, Vaidya Colony, Sakri Road, Dhule, Tq. and Dist. Dhule.

¶15

Bhaidas s/o Vithal Deore, Age : 32 years, Occ : Service, At present, Lecturer, Mahatma Phule, Swapaa Poorti Colony, Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist, Ahmednagar, Rahuri Krushi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, District – Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

Mr. D.A.Mane, Advocate h/f Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. G.R.Ingole, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.B.Thoke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

¶17

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2013.

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶19

1 Rule.

¶20

2 By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶21

3 By consent, heard finally.

¶22

4 The Petitioner is the original first informant. On the report

¶23

lodged by him with Parola Police Station, Jalgaon, a case in respect of an

¶24

¶25

15 WP.758.11.doc

¶26

offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC was registered against

¶27

Respondent Nos.3 to 6. After investigation, the police filed a report alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, by the aforesaid Respondents. The Respondents made an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate. However, it appears that during the pendency of the discharge application, Respondent Nos.3 to 6 approached this Court for quashing the proceedings instituted against them by filing a criminal application, which was numbered as Criminal Application No.3751 of 2007. By an order dated

¶28

8th December, 2009, this Court partly allowed the said application. This

¶29

Court, inter-alia, observed that no case for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC was disclosed as against the said Respondents and that the said Respondents were not liable to be prosecuted with respect to

¶30

the said accusations. However, it was also observed that though the police

¶31

report did not mention anything about any offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act, prima-facie, the offences punishable under Sections 3 and

¶32

4 of the said Act were disclosed from the police report and the

¶33

accompanying documents. This Court, by the same order, also transfered

¶34

¶35

15 WP.758.11.doc

¶36

the case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parola to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule, for proceeding in accordance with law.

¶37

5 It appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate by an order dated

¶38

4th July, 2011 decided the discharge application, which had already been

¶39

filed by the Respondents. The Chief Judicial Magistrate held that there was no material for framing charge against the accused persons with

¶40

respect to the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and discharged them from the case.

¶41

6 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 4th July, 2011 passed

¶42

by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule, the Petitioner has approached this

¶43

Court invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶44

7 A perusal of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

¶45

indicates that he has not applied his mind with respect the existence or

¶46

otherwise of a case for proceeding against the Respondents with respect

¶47

to the offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act. In fact, this

¶48

Court in its order dated 8th December, 2009 (in Criminal Application No.

¶49

3751 of 2007) has clearly observed that the offences punishable under

¶50

¶51

15 WP.758.11.doc

¶52

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, were prima-facie, disclosed

¶53

from the police report and the accompanying documents. The least that was expected of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was, therefore, to discus this aspect of the matter and come to a conclusion as to whether or not there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against Respondent Nos.3 to 5 with respect to the allegations of the aforesaid offences. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as aforesaid, did not consider this aspect of the matter,

¶54

at all, and concentrated merely on ‘whether the offence punishable under

¶55

Section 420 of the IPC was prima-facie disclosed. Such exercise was

¶56

unnecessary, inasmuch as, this Court Court had already held that no such offence was disclosed, and in fact, quashed the prosecution with respect to the said offence.

¶57

8 The impugned order is patently illegal. It does not consider proceeding against the Respondents with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 3 or 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, inspite of the directions given by the Court. It is in contravention of the directions given by this Court and therefore, needs to be interfered with.

¶58

¶59

15 WP.758.11.doc

¶60

9 The Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.

¶61

The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider, in the light

¶62

of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 8th December,

¶63

2009, passed in Criminal Application No.3751 of 2007, whether the police report and accompanying documents make out a case for proceeding against the accused persons with respect to the offences punishable under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and take further appropriate

¶64

action in the matter in accordance with law.

¶65

10 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶66

[ ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. ]

¶67

ndm

Pravin Santosh Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Santosh Patil v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sulbha Jagdish Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kamrunbee Shaikh Rafik and Anr. Vs Shaikh Rafik Shaikh Latif

Gazi Abdul Karim Gazi Hasan Miyan Vs Shaikh Rafiya Described Herself as Shaikh Fariya Gazi Abdul Karim

Bipin Kumar Ramsagar Pandit @ Saxena Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Ranchod Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhagwanta Bhau Dhamane Vs the State of Maharshtra