Disposed

Akkabai Hasan Tadavi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Oct 2024WP/139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench order dismissed the writ petition filed for direction to register an FIR and investigate, holding that such petitions must be approached before a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, not under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the Magistrate for registration of an FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Akkabai Hasan Tadavi Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:25288-DB

¶2

942-wp-139-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.139 OF 2024

¶5

Akkabai Hasan Tadavi, Age: 31 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o. Chinchpura, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon. Dist. Jalgaon.

¶9

The Police Inspector, Pachora Police Station, Dist. Jalgoan. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. G. V. Wani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, AGP for the respondents-State.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 15^th OCTOBER 2024

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

. Present petition has been filed invoking the constitutional

¶14

powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 in particular to investigate the complaint filed before them dated 22.11.2022 and 15.09.2023

¶15

[1]

¶16

942-wp-139-2024.odt

¶17

against Mr. Amol Pawar, Police Sub Inspector.

¶18

Heard learned Advocate Mr. G. V. Wani for the petitioner. He submits that in fact the complaint was already filed, however, respondent No.3 i.e. the Police Inspector, Pachora Police Station, had not registered the FIR and the complaint was then made to respondent No.2, the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, who had also not taken cognizance and, therefore, the FIR is required to be registered. The petitioner had also sought permission to prosecute/sanction against said Mr. Amol Pawar by making an application under Section 197-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [the State amendment which came into effect by Maharashtra Act 60 of 1981, Section 2 (with effect from 05.10.1981)] by communication dated 15.09.2023, however, no action has been taken on the said application also.

¶19

Here, when the petitioner seeks registration of the FIR and the investigation thereof, then we are guided by the decisions in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., [(2008) 2 SCC 409], Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors., [(2016) 6 SCC 277] and T.C. Thangaraj Vs. V. Engammal and Ors., [(2011) 12 SCC 328], which have been then referred in M. Subramaniam

¶20

[2]

¶21

942-wp-139-2024.odt

¶22

and Ors. Vs. S. Janaki and Ors., [(2020) 16 SCC 728], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the petitioner/complainant will have to approach Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Courts should not entertain such petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

In view of the said legal position, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate as provided under the law.

¶24

[ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

scm

¶26

[3]

Akkabai Hasan Tadavi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akkabai Hasan Tadavi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Kakasaheb Deshmukh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dr. Punjaram @ Pankaj Haribhau Bhojane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dashrath Kerapa Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Another

Suresh Pandit Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation Thr Is Commissioner Vs Gangabai Narshing Mudiraj and Ors.

Gulab Yeshwant Nikumbh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another