The High Court dismissed two criminal writ petitions challenging revisional orders that quashed process against accused persons, including a police officer, in a custodial death case, holding them consistent with Section 197 CrPC.
Both criminal writ petitions preferring challenge to the revisional orders were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP-1242-2021+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1242 OF 2021 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2022
Ganesh Hiraman Pimple
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr
...Respondents
Mr. G. K. Muneshwar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. G. L. Deshpande, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. V. P. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 in WP/1242/2021 and for Respondent No. 3 in WP/430/2022. Mr. S. S. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 in WP/430/2022.
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2023
COMMON ORDER:
Page 1 of 9
WP-1242-2021+.odt
issuance of process against him in RCC No. 30/2013 (OMCA No. 30/2013).
Page 2 of 9
WP-1242-2021+.odt
23.04.2019, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded remanded matter back to Magistrate for passing order recording prima facie evidence against Accused No. 5. Accused No. 4 Shyam Apet challenged the said order of issuance of process before Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision Application No. 79/21016. By passing impugned order dated 12.03.2020, the said revision was allowed and order of issuance of process against accused no. 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 407 off IPC came to be quashed. Being dissatisfied by order passed by Revisional Court, original complainant/Petitioner has preferred these Petitions.
that it is a case of custodial death of the deceased and that Respondents police personnel have caused assault on the deceased in the police station and due to injuries caused in the said assault deceased died. He further alleges that MLC was falsely recorded by accused no. 4 indicating facts different than actually occurred. It is also submitted that record is created to show that the injuries caused to the deceased are
Page 3 of 9
WP-1242-2021+.odt
not in assault by accidental one. Thus, it is his contention that there is evidence showing his involvement in the screening of crime. It is submitted that the revisional Court has failed to consider the material facts and has set aside the order of issuance of process against accused No. 4. As far as other Petition is concerned, it is argued that the complaint and material on record is sufficient to issue process against all accused persons and the Revisional Court fell in error in setting aside order against Accused No. 5 and remitting matter back to Magistrate.
Page 4 of 9
WP-1242-2021+.odt
passed by the learned Magistrate does not indicate prima facie evidence/material available on record in order to proceed against him. In the light of these observations, order of issuance of process against accused no. 4 is set aside and the matter was referred back to the Magistrate for passing appropriate order.
16.02.2015 passed by Magistrate does not show anything to indicate as to what evidence led before him was considered sufficient to issue process against Accused No. 3 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It is trite law that while passing order of issuance of process no detailed discussion is necessary of evidence but the order so passed must indicate the reasons/material taken into consideration against the accused. The order passed by learned Magistrate vaguely/generally refers to the statements of witnesses examined but failed to show any reason or justification
for issuance of process against accused no. 5. It is not clear from the order as to which material is taken into consideration or appealed to Magistrate for issuance of the process. In such circumstances, order
Page 5 of 9
WP-1242-2021+.odt
passed by Revisional Court relegating matter back to Magistrate cannot be faulted with.
Page 6 of 9
WP-1242-2021+.odt
complainant/Petitioner has not challenged the said order. Thus, at this stage, it is conclusive that he is not to be charged for offence of murder. Though there is no specific allegation in the complaint against this accused but it is sought to be alleged that false panchnama was drawn and false report was lodged against deceased in order to suppress the incident of assault.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous
Page 7 of 9
WP-1242-2021+.odt
sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government
done by a public servant in discharge of his duty or even purported discharge of duty, cognizance thereof cannot be taken unless previous sanction of prosecution is obtained from competent Authority. Undeniably, there is no sanction obtained in this case. Prima facie allegations against Accused No. 4 touches to discharges of this duties. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of D.
Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) AIR (SC)
3292, has held that even in such situation no cognizance can be taken of such offence without prior sanction. This judgment squarely applied to the present case. Thus, order passed by learned Sessions Judge is
Page 8 of 9
WP-1242-2021+.odt
in consonance with settled law and on proper
appreciation of facts of present case.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 9 of 9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order quashing process against a police officer for custodial death was sustainable in absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
Whether the matter should be remanded to the Magistrate for recording evidence against the accused as held by the revisional court.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the revisional orders passed by the Sessions Judge without error on face of records.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Kumar and others v. M.K. Aiyappa and anotherExplained¶38
Anil Kumar and others Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and another, (203) 10 SCC 705
D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer HussainApplied¶56
D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) AIR (SC) 3292 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganesh Hiraman Pimple
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
