PIL petition alleging police failure to lodge an FIR; the court noted Section 156(3) CrPC provides the proper remedy and declined to entertain the petition, dismissing it.
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.
401-PIL-25-2024
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 25 OF 2024
Bharat Arjandas Tolani .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mrs. Gauri Kishor Jadhav for petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6.
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE: 6th MARCH, 2024
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. A perusal of the prayer clause in this PIL petition reveals that petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the police authority concerned in not lodging the FIR. For the said purpose, a complete mechanism has been provided under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner may be better advised to take recourse to the said provisions.
4. For the aforesaid reason, we are not inclined to entertain the PIL petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2024.03.06 17:04:27 +0530
1
1 issue framed by the court
Should the PIL petition over police inaction in not lodging an FIR be entertained when a mechanism exists under Section 156(3) CrPC?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bharat Arjandas Tolani
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Arif S. Doctor
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
