Dismissed

Shivram Ashok Saikar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Nov 2017WP/1744/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a preliminary enquiry against a police officer, seeking a change of enquiry officer and a fresh enquiry. The court dismissed the petition as misconceived, noting the grievance was already addressed by the State Police Authority, which accepted a report exonerating the officer. No change of enquiry officer could be warranted thereafter.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed.

Shivram Ashok Saikar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(59) WP 1744 OF 2017.odt

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1744 OF 2017

¶5

Shivram Ashok Saikar … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors … Respondents

¶6

Mrs. Vaishali Jagdale, for the Petitioner. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the Respondent State.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE &

¶8

DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 27^th NOVEMBER, 2017.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1] The petition is filed for the following reliefs:-

¶12

“(a) By suitable order or directions this Honourable High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos 4 or 5 to change and appoint any other police officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police from Police Commisionarate, Pune as enquiry officer other than Respondent No.3 in the preliminary enquiry initiated against the Respondent No.3 and a fresh enquiry be conducted in an impartial manner accepting the Petitioner's statement, forthwith”.

¶13

2] Earlier the petitioner approached this Court, by filing Writ

¶14

Petition No.4108 of 2016. The same was disposed on 14^th December,

¶15

1/3

¶16

2016 by passing following order:-

¶17

“1 Heard Mrs. Vaishali Jagdale, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for the State.

¶18

By this petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs :-

¶19

(a) By suitable order or directions this Honourable High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1, 2 & 4 to take disciplinary action against the Respondent No.3 for belatedly registering the FIR No.61/2016.

¶20

(b) By suitable order or directions this Honourable High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to properly investigate the matter strictly as per law and file charge sheet in the competent court in FIR no.61/2016 registered at MIDC Bhosari Police Station, Pune, forthwith.

¶21

So far as prayer clause (a), is concerned, the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy to approach State police authority.

¶22

As far as relief claimed in the prayer clause (b) is concerned, Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP, on instructions, makes statement that investigation into

¶23

2/3

¶24

F.I.R. No.61 of 2016 is almost complete and the chargesheet will be filed within a period of 8 days from today. Statement is accepted”.

¶25

3] The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition was dealt with earlier. In paragraph No.3 of the order dated 14^th December in W.P. No.4108 of 2016, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to approach State Police Authority.

¶26

4] The learned APP points out and learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner had approached the State Police Authority in this regard making grievance against Respondent No.3.

¶27

5] Learned APP submits that the State Police Authority ordered an enquiry against respondent No.3, through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Wagle Estate, Thane. She also states that the enquiry was concluded exonerating the respondent No.3. Accordingly report is submitted to the State Police Authority which has already been accepted.

¶28

6] In the light of above, the petitioner cannot ask for change of enquiry offier. The petition is misconceived and same is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶30

3/3

Shivram Ashok Saikar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivram Ashok Saikar v. the State 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Aslam Mustafa Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Shatrughan Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aslam Mustafa Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Khandu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhijit Pradip Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kanchan Devi Kothari and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.