Quashed

Jayesh Ashok Patil., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2018WPCR/2/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking investigation and directives under S. 156(3) CrPC. The court directed the petitioner to file an application with the Magistrate within four weeks and held that the merits of the claim must be decided by the competent Magistrate first.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application under S. 156(3) CrPC with Magistrate within four weeks; Magistrate to decide within three months; Writ Petition disposed of.

Jayesh Ashok Patil., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Maria S. 1 wpcr-2-2018 dtd.16-03-18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2018

¶4

Jayesh Ashok Patil.,

¶5

 ... Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief

¶8

Secretary And 2 Ors.,

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Shashikant Narayan Joshi, with Ms. Aditi Kamat, Advocates for
the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S. R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents.

¶12

 Coram : N.M. Jamdar &
 Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

¶13

 Date : 16 March 2018

¶14

P.C.

¶15

By this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the

¶16

following relief:

¶17

a) Order a detailed Investigation and Inquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance into the subject matter of the present Petition, including the Complaint dated 25/7/14 filed by the Complainant Shri Ashok Jaiwant Patil therein, Reports dated 20/10/2015 and 01/07/2016 and the illegal Mining operations carried out.

¶18

b) In case the Investigation discloses commission of the offences referred herein above, issue appropriate

¶19

Maria S. 2 wpcr-2-2018 dtd.16-03-18

¶20

Directions to the State to file the Charge Sheet against
the Accused, including the concerned Public Officials.

¶21

c) Institute appropriate Criminal as well as Civil proceedings for recovery of the loss suffered to the State exchequer from M/s. B. G. Associates.

¶22

2.Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor.

¶23

3.The Petitioner has sought the above mentioned reliefs
based on the inspection report dated 20 October 2015 prepared by the
Assistant Geologists of the Department of Mines & Geology wherein
they have recommended a certain course of action. Relying on this
report, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the
offense committed by the persons named in the report being serious,
the Court should take cognizance of the same and issue appropriate
directions.

¶24

4.The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the
order passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Panaji, in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 206 of 2016/B. It appears that the
father of the Petitioner had filed an application dated 25 July 2014
seeking invocation of the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under

¶25

Maria S. 3 wpcr-2-2018 dtd.16-03-18

¶26

Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the very same
relief. The father of the Petitioner expired on 30 April 2017 and the
Petitioner made application for substitution, which was rejected by the
learned Magistrate by order dated 20 December 2017.

¶27

5.Though the application has been rejected by the learned
Magistrate, there is no finding on the merits and only the substitution
of the Petitioner in place of his father is refused. This will not
preclude the Petitioner from filing a proceedings under Section 156(3)
of the Code, in his own capacity. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
and the Public Prosecutor agree. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
requests that if he files proceedings, they be expedited. This request is
fair.

¶28

6.The Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of as
under:-

¶29

a) It is open to the Petitioner to file proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within a period of four weeks from today.

¶30

b) If the application is filed within the period of four weeks as above, the learned Magistrate will decide the application within three months thereafter.

¶31

Maria S. 4 wpcr-2-2018 dtd.16-03-18

¶32

7.It is clarified that we have not considered the merits of the
claim of the Petitioner and the proceedings will be decided by the
learned Magistrate on its own merits.

¶33

8.The Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶34

Prithviraj K. Chavan , J. N.M. Jamdar, J.

Jayesh Ashok Patil., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayesh Ashok Patil., v. State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 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

Devyani Ambekar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Anti-Corruption Branch, Rep. Thr. Public Prosecutor and 3 Ors.

Bipin Sengar and 4 Ors., Vs Shiv Pratap Singh Sikarwar and 7 Ors.

Rajendra T. Chodankar. Vs Govt. of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 8 Ors.

Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Ribandar and Anr., Vs Kennedy Afonso and 11 Ors.

Deputy Collector and Sdo of Tiswadi., Vs Deepali Naik.

Drishti Cruise and Ferries Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Antonio Moises Menezes., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.