Dismissed

Dattatraya Bajirao Sangle v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC4 Dec 2014WP/412/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging the Sessions Judge's remand order regarding the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The court held that the criminal court decides the applicability of sanction and held there is no right for the accused to be heard at the stage of issuing process.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction that the criminal court decides the applicability of sanction without being influenced by superior court findings.

Dattatraya Bajirao Sangle Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

412

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 412 OF 2013

¶6

DATTATRAYA BAJIRAO SANGLE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S. S. Patil APP for Respondent No.1: Mr. S. R. Palnitkar. Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. R. G. Hange. ***

¶8

CORAM: T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED: 4th DECEMBER, 2014.

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed delivered in Criminal Revision No.164 of 2011. The Revision was filed by present Respondent No.2 against the order of issue process made by learned J.M.F.C. in S.C.C. No.192 of 2011 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Patoda. Respondent No.2 is a Police Inspector and he was attached to the concerned police station. It is the contention of the Police Officer that on that day i.e. 10^th May, 2011 a crime was registered against the

¶11

-:(2):-

¶12

412

¶13

complainant in connection with an offence and the complainant was taken to the police station and further investigation was done in the said crime. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner show that initially crime was registered for offence under section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act but “C” summary report is filed by police in that crime and so there was no need for the police inspector to take the complainant to police station. There are allegations that complainant was allegedly manhandled and due to the harassment the complainant suffered much as he was a patient of blood pressure and heart disease. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no question of use of section 197 of Cr.P.C. as the aforesaid allegations and the act of the police inspector, were not under the discharge of duty.

¶14

The learned counsel for the Respondent original accused supported the decision made by learned Additional Sessions Court as the Court has gone through the decision. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed the learned J.M.F.C., as follows:

¶15

“3] The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court with following directions:

¶16

-:(3):-

¶17

412

¶18

i) The learned trial Court shall inquire into the case by giving opportunity to both the parties to present their case on the point of sanction U/sec. 197 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter pass appropriate order, on its own merits, without being influenced by the findings of this Court.”

¶19

The learned counsel for Petitioner/ original complainant has the grievance that the accused cannot have say at the time of issuance of the process or taking the cognizance by the Criminal Court and so at-least to that extent it can be said that learned Additional Sessions Judge acted against provisions of law. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ accused concede that the accused has no right of hearing at the time of taking cognizance of the matter or issuing process.

¶20

4., The position of law that the Criminal Court can decide as to whether the provisions of section 197 Cr.P.C. is applicable to the case and that decision can be taken even at the time of taking cognizance or during trial cannot be disputed. The facts and circumstance of each and every case may be different. In view of the peculiar circumstance of the present case it is up to the

¶21

-:(4):-

¶22

412

¶23

Magistrate to decide as to whether at the stage of issue process the point of the sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C. needs to be decided or whether this point can be addressed after leading some evidence. That power is also with the Magistrate. In view of this position of law, this Court holds that there is no right to the accused of being heard at this point. It is necessary for the Magistrate to make some order of aforesaid nature with regard to the provision of section 197 Cr.P.C. in view of the post which the accused was holding. With these observations, the proceeding is disposed of. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the case reported as 2008 (1) Mah.L.J.(Cri) 624 in the case of

¶24

“ Annapurna Nayak (Dr.) V/s Gyan Chand Varshey (Gupta) and another” . The facts of each and every case are different and it needs to be left to the criminal Court to decide as to at which stage he needs to consider this point. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶25

[T. V. NALAWADE, J.]

¶26

Dt.04/12/2014 ans/412

Dattatraya Bajirao Sangle v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Bajirao Sangle v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah Vs Dattatraya Madhukar Nagarkar and Ors.

Shradha Saburi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mariyadit, Chouraha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pradeep Vishwanath Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kailash Namdeo Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sharad Bhaskar Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Firoz Kasam Fancy Vs Fehmida Ahmed Bhula