Allowed

Jayant Vitthalrao Wanjari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2014WP/1077/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged a stay on an interim order by the Additional Sessions Judge that had halted an investigation directed by a Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court ordered the Sessions Judge to dispose of the revision application finally within one month. It allowed the Sessions Judge to consider any investigation carried out after the High Court revived the process.

What did the court decide?

The interim order staying the Magistrate's investigation order was set aside. The Addl. Sessions Judge was directed to dispose of the revision application finally within one month.

Jayant Vitthalrao Wanjari Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Tilak 1/4 (14)WP-1077-14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1077 OF 2014

¶5

Jayant Vitthalrao Wanjari Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Anr

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Rizwan Merchant i/b Rizwan Merchant & Associates for respondent no.2.

¶11

Mr.Deepak Thakre, APP for the Respondent State.

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 24^th NOVEMBER 2014. ---

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1 Rule.

¶15

2 By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶16

3 By consent, heard finally.

¶17

4 The petitioner is the original complainant. He filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27^th Court, Mulund, alleging commission of cognizable offences by the respondent no.2 herein, and one Harbhajan Singh. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated 5^th March 2014 directed investigation to be carried out in the matter as contemplated under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.2 herein approached the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai by filing an application for Revision. In this Revision Application, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed an

¶18

Tilak 2/4 (14)WP-1077-14

¶19

interim order staying the operation and effect of the order passed by the Magistrate. This is how the operative part of the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, reads. :-

¶20

“Hence, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 5^th March 2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27^th Court, Mulund, Mumbai in C.C.No.11/SW/2014 is stayed till next date”.

¶21

5 The petitioner – original complainant is aggrieved by the said order, as, it, in effect, stayed the investigation that had been ordered to be carried out by the Magistrate. He has, therefore, approached this Court challenging the said interim order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

6 When this petition was listed on board for admission on 20^th March 2014, this Court (Coram : Smt.Sadhana S. Jadhav, J), after making some observations, passed the following order :-

¶23

“operative order passed by Additional Sessions Judge dated 13/03/2014 is hereby stayed for further period of 3 weeks. Learned APP undertakes to inform the Investigating Officer that the operative order passed by Additional Sessions Judge has been stayed and he may proceed with the investigation in accordance with law”.

¶24

Tilak 3/4 (14)WP-1077-14

¶25

It is clear that as a result of the order passed by this Court on 20th March 2014, the investigation has been revived. It is not known as to what is the position with respect to the investigation as of today.

¶26

7 In my opinion, the proper course under the circumstances, would be to direct the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to decide the Revision Application itself finally, expeditiously.

¶27

8 Mr.Merchant submitted that this would be unjust as it might prejudice the respondent no.2 herein i.e. the applicant before the Court of Sessions. He submitted that if investigation has, in fact, been carried out by the police as a result of the order passed by this Court on 20th March 2014, that investigation should not be taken into consideration by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while deciding the Revision Application. He submitted that in the revision application, the respondent no.2 has raised the issue of the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Magistrate, directing investigation into the matter, which according to the learned counsel, is contrary to the express provisions contained in the Maharashtra Schedules Castes, Schedules Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste) Certificate Act, 2000.

¶28

9 I have considered this aspect of the matter.

¶29

10 It is needless to say that it shall be open for the respondent no.2 to raise all these contentions before the revisional court, including the contention as to the result or effect of the

¶30

Tilak 4/4 (14)WP-1077-14

¶31

investigation that might have been carried out, so far, in view of the order dated 20th March 2014 passed by this Court.

¶32

11 In the result, the petition is disposed of as follows:-

¶33

(i) The order dated 13th March 2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge staying the operation and effect of the order dated 5th March 2014 passed by the Magistrate, is set aside.

¶34

(ii) The learned Addl.Sessions Judge to dispose of the revision application finally, after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard in the matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶35

12 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶36

(ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J)

Jayant Vitthalrao Wanjari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayant Vitthalrao Wanjari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant Jivanprakash Doshi Vs Bharat Totaba Kumbhar and Anr.

Rachel D. Albuquerque Vs Chetan Kumar Momaya and Anr.

Rachel D. Albuquerque Vs Chetan Kumar Momaya and Anr.

Ajay Tej Bahadu Singh Vs Sachin Anjanrao Jagtap and Anr.

Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan'S Bhavan College Vs Shri.Pradeep Mohanlal Desai and Ors.

Amey Sharad Joshi Vs Vishal Narendra Bhandari and Anr.