Dismissed

Zafar Ali Khan Mahemud Ali Khan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Feb 2014WP/136/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by a retired social worker challenging an order rejecting his criminal application and a direction to register a case against public officials and a Judicial Officer.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not set aside; prayer for direction to investigate was not granted.

Zafar Ali Khan Mahemud Ali Khan Pathan Vs the State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Cri.W.P.136.14.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 136 OF 2014

¶5

Zafar Ali Khan Mahemud Ali Khan Pathan Age : 70 years, Occ : Retired, Social Worker, R/o H.No. 9-4-1064, Madina Nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.

¶6

.. PETITIONER

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, Police Station Vazirabad, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.

¶9

.. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Zafar Ali Khan Mahemud Ali Khan Pathan – Petitioner- Party-inPerson.

¶11

APP for Respondent : Mr. G.K. Thigale

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: February 04, 2014

¶13

ORAL ORDER :-

¶14

Heard the petitioner, who appears in person.

¶15

The petitioner had made a complaint/application in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded alleging commission of various offences by five persons. These persons were one Ratnakar Kukadgaonkar, Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Nanded-

¶16

Cri.W.P.136.14.odt

¶17

¶18

Waghala Municipal Corporation, one Shrikant Narsappa, Commissioner of the said Corporation, one Laxmikant Patil, SubDivisional Police Officer, Nanded, one Sunil Nikalje, Inspector of Police, Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded and one Dastgir Khan Umar Khan Mulla, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nanded. The petitioner made a prayer that an investigation, as contemplated under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be ordered, and that, a crime report be registered against the said five persons.

¶19

In the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to discuss the original grievance of the petitioner, which was against the said Ratnakar Kukadgaonkar, in details. According to the petitioner, the said Ratnakar Kukadgaonkar is working as Deputy Commissioner of the said Corporation, without having been appointed to that post at any time. In respect of this grievance, he had lodged a report with the Police, but after investigation, the police submitted a "B" Summary Report, which was not accepted by the learned Magistrate, who ordered further investigation. However, after further investigation, the police again filed "B" Summary Report, which was again not accepted by the learned Magistrate, who classified the case as "A" Summary. The petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate had no powers to convert the "B" Summary Report in to "A" Summary Report. The petitioner then approached the Police Station and produced further evidence in support of his complaint. However, no action was taken by the

¶20

3 Cri.W.P.136.14.odt

¶21

police in the matter, and therefore, the petitioner made an application, which was placed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded. The application made by the petitioner was for issuing process on the basis of his original complaint. However, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that when the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had granted "A" Summary, had not issued any process, he could not consider the matter, as if he was an Appellate or Revisional Court against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that the contentions taken by the petitioner were of such a nature as would be required to be taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court. He therefore, rejected the petitioner’s application, by an order dated 18.07.2013.

¶22

Aggrieved by the said order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision. In the revision application, he prayed that the order dated 18.07.2013 be set aside, and that, a crime be directed to be registered against the four persons, mentioned as ‘non-applicants’ in the petitioner's Other Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 264/2013. The petitioner was also prayed that the orders to the effect that ‘the investigation should be supervised and controlled by the Court’ be passed.

¶23

¶24

The learned Sessions Judge, while dealing with the

¶25

Cri.W.P.136.14.odt

¶26

¶27

revision application, came to the conclusion that the proposed accused would be necessary parties to the revision application. He was of the view that though in the proceedings before the Magistrate the said persons had no say, when the revision would be filed against the order of Magistrate, such persons would be necessary parties to the revision. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, by an order dated 16.08.2013 directed the petitioner to add the proposed accused as parties to the revision application.

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. He thereafter filed the aforesaid complaint bearing Other Misc. Criminal Application no. 409/2013 on 11.10.2013 and after the same was dismissed by an order dated 12.11.2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate has approached this Court by filing the present Petition.

¶29

Though a number of contentions - including impropriety of the order passed by the Sessions Judge and about the alleged dishonest writing of the Roznama, etc. - have been raised by the petitioner, the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate does not seem to be suffering from any illegality or perversity. The petitioner had, in his complaint application bearing Original Misc. Criminal Application No. 409/2013, had made the Principal District Judge as an accused along with the four persons, whom he originally wanted to prosecute. He had also cited The Hon’ble The Chief Justice of

¶30

Cri.W.P.136.14.odt

¶31

¶32

the Bombay High Court, as a witness in the said complaint. Prima facie, it appears that there was no basis for making the Sessions Judge, Nanded as a party to his application and for projecting him as an accused and much less, there was any reason or justification for citing The Hon’ble The Chief Justice as a witness in connection with the complaint lodged by the petitioner. The observations made by the Magistrate, while rejecting the petitioner’s application i.e. Original Misc. Criminal Application No. 409/2013 cannot be said to be improper or unjustified.

¶33

In fact, in the course of oral arguments, the petitioner submitted that he was giving up the issue that investigation should be ordered in the said O.M.C. No. 409/2013, and that, he had no intention to malign any Judicial Officer or to weaken the judiciary. He, however, has a grievance about the direction given by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 16.08.2013, requiring the petitioner to add the proposed accused as respondents to the revision application. According to the petitioner, such a direction is contrary to law.

¶34

No opinion on the correctness of the directions, or the claim of the petitioner that it is not necessary to make the proposed accused parties to the revision application, is being expressed, as such a question has not been brought before the Court by way of present Petition. It is made clear to the petitioner that so far as that legal point is concerned, he would be free to

¶35

6 Cri.W.P.136.14.odt

¶36

bring the matter before this Court, if so advised, by adopting any proper remedy and by directly challenging that direction. However, the prayer made in the present Petition - viz :- that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.11.2013 should be set aside, and that, the police should be directed to investigate into the matter - where the Principal District Judge is mentioned as an accused and The Hon’ble The Chief Justice is cited as a witness - do not deserve to be granted.

¶37

10. The Petition is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶40

¶41

sga/-

Zafar Ali Khan Mahemud Ali Khan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zafar Ali Khan Mahemud Ali Khan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Raju Shamrao Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sambhaji Balaji Dhembre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sahebrao Appa Ingale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Syed Jawed Syed Mahemood Vs Nasra Fatema Syed Jawed and Another

Nilesh Govind Aarde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sangita Narayan Ghule and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another