Dr. Satish Shah & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 15 Sep 2010
- Bench
- U D SALVI, A M KHANWILKAR
Outcome
Allowed
counsel for the petitioners, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn with
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. This matter has been placed under the caption 'for settlement'. The respondent No.3 is in the employment of Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal of which the petitioner No.1 is the trustee and petitioner No.2 is principal. Considering the background in which the complaint came to be…
- Para 22. The respondent No.3 lodged a complaint for offences punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Section 7 of the Civil Rights Act, 1955 read with other offences under Indian Penal Code in connection with…
Judgment
Mr. Satish Borulkar i/b. Ajay Law Associates for petitioners. Mr. R.N. Kachave with V.V. Pai for respondent No.3. Mr. D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for respondent-State. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. :-
This matter has been placed under the caption 'for settlement'. The respondent No.3 is in the employment of Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal of which the petitioner No.1 is the trustee and petitioner No.2 is principal. Considering the background in which the complaint came to be filed by the respondent No.3 against the petitioners, we had suggested to the respondent No.3 and the petitioners to amicably resolve all their differences. It however, transpires that the respondent No.3 is not interested in any settlement with the petitioners. 2 W.P. NO.1847-10 The respondent No.3 is present in the Court. In spite of counselling by his Advocate, respondent No.3 does not want to settle the matter with the petitioners. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.
Operative part
The respondent No.3 lodged a complaint for offences punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Section 7 of the Civil Rights Act, 1955 read with other offences under Indian Penal Code in connection with the incident in question. The Police investigated that complaint and have reached to a conclusion that no offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been made out against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer has already submitted his report in this behalf before the appropriate Court. In other words, if that report were to be accepted by the Court, the matter will proceed against the petitioners only for the offences punishable under section 7 of the Civil Rights Act, 1955 and sections 342, 323 & 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of this development, the petitioners do not want to pursue the petition at this stage. Instead, they seek leave to withdraw the petition to pursue other remedy as may be available in law. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. All questions are kept open. (U.D.SALVI, J.)
(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: counsel for the petitioners, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3; Civil Rights Act, 1955 — s. 7; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Sep 2010. The bench was U D SALVI, A M KHANWILKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.