Dismissed

Shrikant Madhav Karve v. the Secretary (Parivahan), Home Ministry, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Apr 2014WP/1221/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a Writ Petition for blanket permission/sanction to file criminal complaints against multiple Motor Vehicle Inspectors under section 197 CrPC. The Court held that writ courts cannot grant such sanction and that competent authorities must consider each officer's case individually.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with no sanction granted and remedies kept open for individual applications.

Shrikant Madhav Karve Vs the Secretary (Parivahan)… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

k 4 wp 1221.13.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1221 OF 2013

¶4

Shrikant Madhav Karve ... Petitioner.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The Secretary (Parivahan IV) & Anr. ... Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Shrikant M. Karve - Petitioner in person. Mr. S.K. Shinde, Government Pleader for the respondents/State. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar Amicus Curiae.

¶8

CORAM: A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : APRIL 11, 2014.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 We have heard the Petitioner appearing in person.

¶11

2 The first prayer made in this Petition is to grant blanket permission to the Petitioner to file criminal complaints against the Motor Vehicle Inspectors and other officers of the concerned Department under section 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

3 The second prayer is for grant of permission to the Petitioner to

¶13

file Complaints against various offending officers of the Road Transport

¶14

1/3

¶15

k 4 wp 1221.13.doc

¶16

Offices working in different parts of the State only in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pune.

¶17

4 The Petitioner appearing in person submits that large number of officers of Road Transport Offices have committed offences punishable under sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that by addressing letters to the Government and to the Hon’ble Governor, he has sought a blanket permission to file criminal complaints. He submits that since there are large number of officers who are indulging in offences, he had sought blanket permission and a blanket sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He submitted that as the State Government has not responded by granting sanction. Therefore, he has filed this Petition seeking sanction from this Court. He submits that if this Court is of view that such a blanket sanction cannot be issued by the Government he may be permitted to amend the Petition.

¶18

5 We have considered the submissions. The Petitioner cannot seek sanction to prosecute under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from writ Court. The Petitioner will have to seek sanction from the competent authority which is empowered to grant sanction. Before a sanction to prosecute is granted, the competent

¶19

1/3

¶20

k 4 wp 1221.13.doc

¶21

authority will have to apply its mind and therefore, the competent authority will have to consider case of each individual officer separately. In our view such a blanket consent or sanction under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be granted. If the Petitioner is entitled in law to prosecute an officer of the Road Transport Offices, he will have to apply for grant of sanction in individual cases. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the issue whether Petitioner is entitled to seek such a sanction. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the Applications made by the Petitioner which are annexed to the Petition, this Petition cannot be entertained. We accordingly dispose of the Petition subject to what is observed as above by keeping the remedies of the Petitioner expressly

¶22

open.

¶23

katkam

¶24

1/3

Shrikant Madhav Karve v. the Secretary (Parivahan), Home Ministry, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Madhav Karve v. the Secretary (Parivahan), Home Ministry, Govt 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

Mrs. Jyoti Sangram Chavan Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporatin Ltd.

Nagnath Uddhav Kadam Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Sai Properties through Its Partner Shri. Pradeep Mangharam Lulla Vs Shri. Deepak Balkrishna Vahikar and Anr.

Villagers of Pahine , Kojuli and Bhilmal Gaon Vs the Collector , Nashik and Ors.

Mehul Kantilal Bhatt Vs Dimple Mehul Bhatt

Mehul Kantilal Bhatt Vs Dimple Mehul Bhatt