IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
G.A. SANAP, J.
Vikas S/o. Daulatraoji Wagh – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 102 of 2014
Decided on : 25-07-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3), 397 - Filed false FIR against innocent persons - Conduct investigation - Challenge is to order passed whereby learned Special Judge on complaint of respondent No.3 directed Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct investigation – Held, There was no sanction for initiation of prosecution or for directing further investigation - Complaint made by respondent No.3 is silent about sanction for prosecution of accused - Order passed by learned Special Judge cannot be sustained - learned Special Judge has failed to record even brief reasons for passing an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC - Approach of learned Special Judge, as can be reflected from order, was mechanical and casual - Order passed without recording reasons indicates non-application of mind to facts stated in complaint – Court is of opinion that impugned order suffers from manifest illegality - Order, therefore, cannot be sustained - Application is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
In this writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 24th January, 2014, passed by learned Special Judge, Nagpur, whereby learned Special Judge on the complaint of respondent No.3 by exercising the powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur to conduct the investigation.
2. BACKGROUND FACTS:
Respondent No.3 filed a complaint against the petitioner and one Mr. Ramchandra Varthi and prayed for an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. It is the case of respondent No.3 that one Mr. Jadhav, a Police Inspector, at the relevant time, was attached to Kamptee Police Station. He had committed various illegal activities. He had filed false First Information Reports against the innocent persons. On 12th January, 2011, Police Inspector Mr. Jadhav, by accepting Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) from Mohanlal Rathod, had registered a crime against the respondent No.3 and others under Sections 186, 353, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In the said crime, Police Inspector Mr. Jadhav beat Prashant Chahande in the police custody. The Court, after taking the cognizance of this incident, had ordered registration of a crime against the police. Respondent No.3, therefore, filed a Criminal Case No.09/2012. Learned Special Judge, by his order dated 7th September, 2012, had ordered the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur to conduct the enquiry. The enquiry, on the date of this application, was pending.
3. It is stated that due to filing of the criminal case against the Police Inspector Mr. Jadhav by respondent No.3, he was annoyed. He was waiting for an opportunity. On 20th July, 2013, he got an opportunity and made use of it. It is stated that the neighbour of respondent No.3 by name Vijay Shamkuwar and his relatives on 20th July, 2013 assaulted the respondent No.3. They damaged his maruti van. Therefore, the respondent No.3 lodged a report against said Vijay Shamkuwar and his relatives on 20th July, 2013 at Kamptee Police Station. A crime bearing No.124/2013 was registered against Vijay Shamkuwar and three others under Sections 452, 294, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is alleged that Police Inspector Mr. Jadhav took the advantage of this situation. He had a grudge against the respondent No.3. Police Inspector Mr. Jadhav, therefore, misused his position and instigated the wife of Vijay Shamkuwar to lodge a false report against the respondent No.3. On the basis of the false report lodged by Anju Vijay Shamkuwar, a crime bearing No.3080/2013 was registered against the respondent No.3 on 21st July, 2013 for the offences under Sections 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In this crime, Police Inspector Mr. Jadhav handed over the investigation to ASI Mr. Ramchandra Varthi. ASI Mr. Ramchandra Varthi conducted the enquiry and came to the conclusion that the incident narrated in the FIR, registered on the report of Anju Shamkuwar, had not occurred.
4. It is stated that the Investigating Officer ASI Mr. Ramchandra Varthi on 7th November, 2013 informed the respondent No.3 that he had submitted the report to the Police Inspector Mr. Vikas Wagh with recommendation to close the case registered against the respondent No.3. It is alleged that ASI Mr. Ramchandra Varthi told respondent No.3 that he would manage the Police Inspector Mr. Vikas Wagh but, for that purpose he would have to pay Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand). Respondent No.3 has stated that thereafter on 9th November, 2013 he along with Prashant Chahande and Gondade went to Kamptee Police Station and met Police Inspector Mr. Vikas Wagh. It is stated that at the time, Police Inspector Mr. Vikas Wagh demanded Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) from respondent No.3 for sending final closer report in the crime registered against him. Police Inspector Mr. Vikas Wagh told the respondent No.3 to handover the money to ASI Mr. Ra
Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Anr. 2014 CrLJ 1 SC
HDFC Securities Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2017(1) SCC (Cri) 485].
L. Narayana Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [AIR 2016 SC 4125]
State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta, (2004) 2 SCC 349
State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid [(1995) 1 SCC 684 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 266 : (AIR 1995 SC 785)]
It is well settled law that if a judgment is referred to a larger Bench, proposition of law so enunciated in judgment does not lose its efficacy and it continues to remain a binding precedent till ov....
Bare perusal of Section 17A of P.C. Act would indicate bar for enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence under the P.C. Act is on the Police Officer.
The sanction contemplated in Section 197 of the Code concerns a public servant who is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge o....
Point of Law : High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the PC Act, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available to the public serva....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for offences in discharge of o....
Seizer of contraband – Rejection of bail - Contraband seized is a commercial quantity and therefore Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is applicable to the case of the petitioner
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for official duty acts; absenc....
The remedy of revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is not efficacious after the registration of an FIR following an order under Section 156(3), but the revisional court retains the power to inte....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.