Dismissed

John Constance Dsouza v. State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2021WPCR/36/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay held that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for directing the addition of specific IPC sections to an FIR. The Court held that the petitioner should approach the Superintendent of Police or rely on Cr.P.C. provisions for redressal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to approach Superintendent of Police or file proceedings under Cr.P.C. sections 154 and 156.

John Constance Dsouza Vs State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor and… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 - 1 WPCR-36-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.36 OF 2021

¶4

JOHN CONSTANCE DSOUZA ...Petitioner
VS
STATE OF GOA, THR. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR AND 2 ORS ... Respondents

¶5

Ms. G. Kamat Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents
No.1 and 2.

¶6

Coram:- M. S. SONAK &
 SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR,JJ.
Date:- 15th July, 2021.

¶7

P.C.:-

¶8

Heard Ms. G. Kamat, learned Advocate for the petitioner
and Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶9

2.The petitioner has instituted the present petition seeking
direction to the respondents to add Sections 406, 407 and 477 of IPC
in the FIR No. 266 of 2020. Ms. Kamat, learned Advocate now points
out that there is an error in the prayer clause and Section 407 should
in fact be substituted with Section 409 of IPC.

¶10

3.Ms. Kamat, learned Advocate submits that the complaint
filed by the petitioner clearly discloses the commission of offences

¶11

2 - 1 WPCR-36-2021.doc

¶12

under the aforesaid Sections and therefore, the FIR ought to have
mentioned aforesaid Sections as well.

¶13

4.Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that in such matters if any party is aggrieved, such party has to
approach the Superintendent of Police. He submits that if the
petitioner obtains no redressal from the Superintendent of Police, then
there are provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.',
for short) including Sections 156 and 154 of Cr.P.C., under which the
petitioner can seek redress.

¶14

5.According to us, Writ Petition will not be the appropriate
remedy in this matter. If, the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner can
take out appropriate proceedings under Cr.P.C. to seek redressal. Even
otherwise, at the stage of framing of the charge, it is always open to the
petitioner to point out to the Court that the material on record
warrants framing of charge under the aforesaid Sections, in addition to
the Sections already stated in the FIR.

¶15

6.For the aforesaid reasons, by giving liberty to the petitioner
is the aforesaid terms, we dispose of this petition.

¶16

 SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR,J M. S. SONAK, J.
mv

¶17

MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Digitally signed by MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Date: 2021.07.16 11:37:39 +05'30'

John Constance Dsouza v. State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Constance Dsouza v. State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor 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

Vijayanand Kankonkar and Anr., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Communidade of Sangolda, Rep. Thr. Their Attorney Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Their Chief Secretary and 10 Ors.

Naveen @ Pandurang K. Prabhu Vs Sanjay B. Naik and 3 Ors.

Jeronimo Oliveira De Souza Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Ramnath Chandro Gawas and 7 Ors., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Ors.

Durgesh Chandrakant Majik and 4 Ors. Vs Ramnath Chandro Gawas and 7 Ors.