Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ.
Vinod D. Gangwal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1680 of 2015 with 5090 of 2014
Decided On : 30-10-2015
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF FIR - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST ACT - INVESTIGATION - SECTION 156(3) CR.P.C. - Held, the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the order passed by him was not illegal or perverse.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a journalist, social worker, and Advocate, filed a Petition challenging an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, directing investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against him for offences punishable under sections 353, 186, 506 of the IPC and sections 3(viii)(ix)(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST Act. The complaint was filed by one Mr. Sunil Darekar, a Police Inspector, alleging that the Petitioner had committed the offences while he was investigating a case of rape of a three-year-old girl.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the order passed by him was not illegal or perverse. The Court further held that the ingredients of offences punishable under sections 353 and 354 of the IPC were prima facie made out against the Petitioner and therefore, FIR No. 346 of 2014 could not be quashed. However, the Court quashed FIR No. 381 of 2014 as it did not disclose any prima facie case of any offence.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the Petitioner for offences punishable under the SC/ST Act? 2. Whether the ingredients of offences punishable under sections 353 and 354 of the IPC were prima facie made out against the Petitioner? 3. Whether FIR No. 381 of 2014 disclosed any prima facie case of any offence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to order investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the Petitioner for offences punishable under the SC/ST Act. The Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gangula Ashok and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was held that a Special Court under the SC/ST Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. 2. The Court held that the ingredients of offences punishable under sections 353 and 354 of the IPC were prima facie made out against the Petitioner. The Court relied on the statement of the complainant, wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner had pushed her, abused her, and inappropriately touched her. 3. The Court held that FIR No. 381 of 2014 did not disclose any prima facie case of any offence. The Court relied on the statement of the complainant, wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner had committed offences punishable under sections 188, 500, 501, 502 of the IPC, sections 66A and 66B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and sections 23(1)(2)(3) (4) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court found that the ingredients of these offences were not prima facie made out.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Petition challenging the order passed by the Magistrate directing investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the Petitioner for offences punishable under the SC/ST Act. The Court also dismissed the Petition challenging FIR No. 346 of 2014 alleging offences punishable under sections 353 and 354 of the IPC. However, the Court quashed FIR No. 381 of 2014 as it did not disclose any prima facie case of any offence.
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule in both the Petitions made returnable forthwith.
2. By this Petition (WP(Cri.)/1680/2015) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the "Cr.P.C."), the Petitioner challenges the order passed on 7th March, 2015. That order is to the following effect:-
"ORDER
Heard learned counsel for complainant at length.
The allegations made are very serious which require thorough investigation. The IO would on investigation, if comes to conclusion about its truthfulness, proceed, or else not.
After making of such allegations and on hearing the complainant the Court is duty bound to order investigation. The case/complainant cannot be heard summarily and disposed off.
Hence in interest of justice the police to investigate the offence under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and file report. The CP to appoint authorised officer as per the SC/ST Act to investigate it."
3. The challenge to this order arises out of the following facts and circumstances:-
The Petitioner is a journalist, social worker and Advocate and has raised several social issues. He has filed many Public Interest Litigations in this Court. He has published various articles through Mukt Bharat Newspaper and other various newspapers.
4. Respondent No. 1 is State of Maharashtra, respondent No.2 is Mr. Sunil Balbhim Darekar and Respondent No. 3 is Senior Police Inspector of Kharghar Police Station, who helped Respondent No. 2 to register false complaint against the Petitioner. Respondent No. 4 is Assistant Commissioner of Police, Zone - II, Navi Mumbai. Respondent No. 5 is Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone - II, Navi Mumbai. Respondent No.6 is Commissioner of Police and is in-charge and responsible for day to day affairs and all the activities of Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate.
5. The Petitioner approached this Court for quashing an order dated 7th March, 2015 directing investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., reproduced above.
6. That order has been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel on 7th March, 2015. That order has been passed on the complaint of one Mr. Sunil Darekar posted as Police Inspector, Kharghar Police Station. That complaint is numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2015. By the said complaint, the complainant has alleged that the Petitioner has committed offences punishable under sections 353, 186, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the "IPC") and sections 3(viii)(ix)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (for short the "SC/ST Act").
7. The complainant alleges that he has been posted at Kharghar Police Station from June, 2014. He states that he belongs to Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe.
8. It is alleged by him that a crime was registered, being FIR No. 345 of 2014 on 23rd November, 2014 at Kharghar Police Station. That alleged offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC. It is alleged that the Petitioner, without taking anybody's permission, entered the police station. He started clicking photographs of the victim in Crime No. 345 of 2014. The Petitioner was projecting as if he is a reporter of some television channel while clicking the photographs. The complainant in the FIR/Crime No. 345 of 2014 objected to the Petitioner taking photographs. The Petitioner pushed her and at that time, the Assistant Police Inspector and Police Inspector Mr. Patil were trying to explain to the Petitioner that he and his associate Mr. Bohra should not behave like this, but both of them started arguing in a high pitched tone with the police officials and obstructed their official work.
9. The complainant then alleges that he was entrusted with the investigation in the offences alleged against the Petitioner by Tarabai Wankhede, complainant in FIR No. 345 of 2014. On Tarabai's complaint, the Petitioner was impleaded as
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
