Quashed

The Associated Cement Staff Union v. Senior Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2013WP/777/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court quashed an impugned order accepting an 'A' Summary by a Magistrate for lacking reasons. The Court remanded the matter to decide the Summary afresh after hearing the parties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order accepting the 'A' Summary was quashed and remanded to the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for a fresh decision.

The Associated Cement Staff Union Vs Senior Inspector of… — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2013)

WP 777.11.sxw

JPP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 777 OF 2011

¶6

The Associated Cement Staff Union.

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

¶10

... Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye for the Petitioner. Mr. Prakash Naik a/w. Mr. Hemant Tellay i/b. Haresh Mehta for Respondent 2.

¶12

Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State.

¶13

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS &

¶14

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶15

APRIL 25, 2013.

¶16

P.C. :-

¶17

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶18

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8^th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, dated 29.10.2010 accepting the 'A' Summary submitted by the Investigating Agency. The principal contention in support of the aforesaid relief is that the order

¶19

¶20

WP 777.11.sxw

¶21

passed by the learned Magistrate is bereft of any reason and does not indicate that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind. In the light of the nature of the challenge which is raised in the present Petition, according to us, it is not necessary to advert to the facts in detail.

¶22

Suffice it to state that pursuant to the report lodged by the Petitioner and the registration of the offence, and the conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Agency had submitted 'A' Summary before the Trial Magistrate. The Trial Magistrate, by the order which is impugned in the present Petition dated 29.10.2010 accepted the 'A' Summary. The order which is impugned in the present Petition is a cryptic order which does not give any reason. Normally it is not expected of the Trial Magistrate to deal and give detailed reasons. Some reasons have to be given which would indicate that the learned Magistrate had applied its mind while accepting the 'A' Summary. The present Petitioner had also filed its reply and in the absence of some reasons, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the Trial Magistrate had considered the reply of the Petitioner.

¶23

In the light of the fact that the impugned order is bereft of any reason, we allow this Petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8^th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, for a decision afresh in respect of the 'A' Summary submitted by the Investigating Agency. The Trial Magistrate shall again

¶24

¶25

WP 777.11.sxw

¶26

hear the Petitioner and the Investigating Officer and decide the 'A' Summary in accordance with law, as expeditiously as is possible.

¶27

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. It is needless to state that the part of the prayer dealing with the transfer of investigation is pre-mature in the light of the order which we have passed today. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner of filing appropriate proceedings seeking the relief of transfer of investigation/officer or further investigation in the light of such orders which the Trial Magistrate may pass in the 'A' summary proceedings.

¶28

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶29

(P.V. HARDAS, J.)

The Associated Cement Staff Union v. Senior Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Associated Cement Staff Union v. Senior Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station 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

Bharat Pukhraj Jain Vs Mohammad Iliyas Ahmed Shaikh @ Papa and Ors.

Shaitansingh Sohansingh Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra

Napoleon Sebastian Gernandez and Anr. Vs Kiran Devappa Pujari and Anr.

Babu Ramappa Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Lux Industries Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Badshah Singh Ajab Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra