Ms X v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.Mihir Desai for the petitioner. Mr. G. W. Mattos, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. & S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2005. P.C.:
The petitioner, who is the rape victim in the “Marine Drive rape case”, has claimed compensation under the public law for violation of her fundamental rights at the hands of a State functionary. According to the petitioner, because of the unfortunate incident, she has suffered tremendous physical and mental trauma. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to pay Rs.15 lakhs as compensation for violation of her fundamental rights.
Pursuant to the show cause notice issued by this Court, Sadanand Ramchandra Jadhav, Deputy Secretary (Special), Home Department, has filed affidavit. In the affidavit, it is mentioned that a case has been registered against respondent 2 No.4 Sunil More, police constable under sections 376(2)(a), (b), 342, 323, 354 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code read with section 85(1)(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It is also mentioned that the case has now been committed to the Court of Sessions at Greater Mumbai, bearing Sessions Case No.563 of 2005. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the State Government on 23.9.2005 has paid Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that a case has been registered against respondent no.4 and the petitioner has been paid compensation of Rs.3 lakhs, he has instructions to withdraw this petition. The petitioner submits that the same observations which have been made by the Supreme Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [(1983) 4 SCC 141] be made in this case. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The request seems to be reasonable. This order will not prevent the petitioner from bringing a suit for appropriate damages from the State and its erring officials. 3
No further directions are necessary. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 — s. 85(1)(a).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Oct 2005. The bench was S A BOBDE.
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.