Dismissed

Ashvinikumar Gowtamrao Jamdade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Dec 2023APL/1461/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application challenging lower courts' orders denying police investigation, the High Court observed that the complaint contained non-specific, vague, and omnibus allegations against the accused without naming the primary accused correctly. Consequently, the court held that no prima facie case was made out to direct police investigation, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC was denied; the criminal revision application was dismissed.

Ashvinikumar Gowtamrao Jamdade Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Chitra Sonawane.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Application No. 1461 of 2022

¶4

Ashvinikumar Gowtamrao Jamdade
Age-47, Occupation-Advocate Practice
Address-S.No.8+9/18+19, Lane No.2,
Near Ganpati Temple, Below Canal,
House No.62, Karvenagar,
Pune-411052

¶5

-
Applicant.

¶6

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY V/S SONAWANE SANJAY Date: SONAWANE 2023.12.02 11:18:09 +0530

¶7

1]State of Maharashtra,
Warje Malwadi Police Station,
Canal Road, Near Shree Omiya
Garage, Pune

¶8

2]Girls Father, Age-60 years
Warje Malwadi, Pune

¶9

3] Anand B. Bagul
Age-70,
Address-S.No.8+9/18+19, Lane No.2,
Near Ganpati Temple, Below Canal,
Nandadeep, House No.63, Karvenagar,
Pune-411052

¶10

4]Hanumant S. Godse Age -70,Address -S.No.8+9/18+19, Lane No.2,Near Ganpati Temple, Below Canal, House No.32, Opposite Subhadra - Banglow, Karvenagar, Pune-411052 Opponent

¶11

Page No. 1 of 4 ______________________________________________1 December 2023

¶12

Chitra Sonawane. 12-APL-1461-2022.doc

¶13

Mr Ashvinikumar G. Jamdade, petitioner-in-person.
Mr MG Patil, APP for State.

¶14

Coram : R.N. Laddha,J.
 Date : 1 December 2023.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

The complainant/applicant has filed this criminal
application to challenge the orders of both the Courts below
that denied his request to issue a direction under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
‘CrPC’), to send his complaint for investigation by police. The
complainant has filed the complaint against the
respondents/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324, 120 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) and the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of
Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori
Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. By this order, the
learned Magistrate, instead of sending the complaint for
police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, directed the
complainant to record his verification statement.

¶17

2.The applicant claims to be a practising Advocate. It is
alleged in the complaint that some girls were residing on rent
in the house belonging to respondent No.4. He saw the victim
girl while going to the house of respondent No.3. On

¶18

Page No. 2 of 4 ______________________________________________1 December 2023

¶19

Chitra Sonawane. 12-APL-1461-2022.doc

¶20

28.8.2017, he saw a person beating the drum, and from that
day, aghori practice or black magic was done on him at night,
endangering his life. He is experiencing pain in his chest and
head. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with the Warje police
station on 15.2.2018. As the police did not take cognizance of
his complaint, he filed a private complaint case bearing RCC
No.3629 of 2018 before the learned JMFC, 10th Court, Pune
and requested to send his complaint for police investigation
under Section 156(3) CrPC. However, the learned Magistrate
rejected his prayer of police investigation under Section
156(3) CrPC. Therefore, he filed a Criminal Revision
Application bearing No.10 of 2019 before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, by his order dated 23.1.2020, however,
dismissed the revision application. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Courts below, the
applicant preferred this criminal application.

¶21

3.Heard the complainant/applicant who is present in
person, and Mr MG Patil, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

¶22

4.After examining the complaint, it is revealed that the
complaint does not mention the name and address of accused

¶23

Page No. 3 of 4 ______________________________________________1 December 2023

¶24

Chitra Sonawane. 12-APL-1461-2022.doc

¶25

No.1, instead referring to him as “father of the girl”. The
allegations of black magic are made against accused No.1 by
stating that because of this black magic done to the
complainant, he is experiencing pain in his chest and head.
The complainant is not claiming that he saw accused No.1
while performing black magic, nor is he claiming that accused
No.1 ever came in his contact. The allegations against accused
No.2 and 3 are that they allowed their house to be occupied
on rent by the girls without verifying what those tenants are
doing. All these allegations are non-specific, vague and
omnibus.

¶26

5.In such circumstances, no case is made out to send the
complaint for investigation by police under Section 156(3)
CrPC. The Courts have properly exercised their discretion to
reject the prayer of the applicant to direct police investigation
under Section 156(3) CrPC and have rightly passed the order.
As such, the present criminal application stands dismissed.

¶27

Page No. 4 of 4 ______________________________________________1 December 2023

Ashvinikumar Gowtamrao Jamdade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashvinikumar Gowtamrao Jamdade v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viacom 18 Motion Pictures Vs Satyaprakash Ladharam Mangtani and Anr.

Mahesh Kothare Vs Satyaprakash Ladharam Mangtani and Anr.

Mohini Rajendrabapu Kumkar Vs Manisha Vijay Nahar and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Manoj Shamrao Patil and Ors.

M/S. Amit Traders Vs Rupal Rajesh Bhojani and Anr.

Prashant Mahadeo Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.