Prakash Malleshappa Jhamjagle v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Dec 2011
- Bench
- K K TATED, A M KHANWILKAR
Outcome
Disposed of
This petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 323, 324, 326, 342, 504, 506(II)
- Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 s. 3
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. This petition is disposed of. K.K. TATED, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
Judgment
Mr. Dinesh Tiwari i/by M/s. Dinesh Tiwari & Associates for the Petitioner Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P., for the State CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The relief claimed in this petition is to issue direction to the respondents to register First Information Report under Sections 323, 324, 326, 342, 504, 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 as against the named accused persons. 2 268411
From the record placed before us and the official record relied by the learned A.P.P., it transpires that the incident in question occurred on 24th March, 2011 at around 12.00 noon. Soon thereafter, the petitioner had gone to the local police station. His statement was recorded by the concerned police officer. The petitioner has signed the said statement in acceptance of the correctness thereof. On the basis of the said statement, the concerned police officer proceeded to register the case as N.C. Complaint. On the next day, however, the petitioner was advised to prepare a written complaint.
Prima facie, it appears that, though the endorsement on the said document (Exhibit ‘E’) is dated 25th March, 2011, it was handed over in the office of the officer-in-charge of the local police station on 28th March, 2011. Neither in the said document, nor in the Writ Petition, any grievance is made that the statement recorded by the concerned police officer on 24th March, 2011 was not the true version given by the petitioner; and that the petitioner was forced to sign the same immediately. There is no reason to assume that the petitioner was forced to sign the distorted or incorrect statement by the local police. In other words, the written complaint, purportedly dated 25th March, 2011, appears to be an after-thought. 3 268411
In this view of the matter, the local police station cannot be found fault with in not acting upon the written complaint given subsequently. The petitioner is free to pursue such other remedy as may be permissible in law, including to file private complaint, if so advised. All questions on merits will have to be decided in such proceedings, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
Operative part
This petition is disposed of. K.K. TATED, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 323, 324, 326, 342, 504, 506(II); Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 — s. 3.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Dec 2011. The bench was K K TATED, 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.