Dhammadip v. The State of Maharashtra

1criwp No.288-2025IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD8 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2025Dhammadip S/o. Janardhan Mogale,Age : 33 Years, Occu. : Education,R/o. Arogya Colony, Parbhani,Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.…. PetitionerVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Secretary of the Home Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Director General of Police,The State of Maharashtra,Mumbai, Maharashtra.3.The Special Inspector of General,Nanded Region, Nanded.4.The Superintendent of Police,Parbhani.5.The Dy. Superintendent of Police,Parbhani.6.The Police Inspector,Police Station Nawa Mondha,Parbhani.7.The Police Inspector,Police Station Nanalpeth,Parbhani.8.Medical Officer,Civil Hospital,Parbhani. …. Respondents 2criwp No.288-2025….Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Milind B. Sandanshiv APP for Respondents-State : Mr. N.R. Dayama….CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 17th March 2025PER COURT :-1.Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. The presentpetition has been filed for following reliefs :“[B]This Hon’ble Court may kindly by issuing anappropriate writ or direction, direct respondent No.1 toappoint an I.P.S. Officer (out of the Nanded Region ofInspector General) to register the offence and investigatethe crime against the Police persons, as per the writtencomplaint filed by the petitioner on dated 19/12/2024 asper the provisions of the B.N.S. Act as well as thePrevention of Atrocity Act against the S.C. and S.T. andPolice persons who are illegally beaten and kept in lockupat the police station.[C]This Hon’ble Court may kindly by issuing anappropriate writ or direction, directed to the investigationofficer in respect of brutally beating the petitioner andillegally being kept in police custody at Nawa MondhaPolice Station, Parbhani. Please direct to call the record inrespect of arrest and other things which are mandatory 3criwp No.288-2025under the provisions of B.N.S.S., B.N.S, MaharashtraPolice Act, and Bombay Police Manual, especially inrespect of investigation and arrest.[D]This Hon’ble Court may kindly investigate the abovecrime based on a written complaint dated 19/12/2024given by the petitioner under the observation of thisHon’ble Court.[E]This Hon’ble Court may kindly by issuing anappropriate writ or direction, direct the investigationofficer please call C.C.T.V. footages of the Superintendentof Police office as well as Nava Mondha Police Station ofParbhani from dated 11/12/2024 to 25/12/2024.[F]This Hon’ble Court may kindly by issuing anappropriate writ or direction, direct the Medical Officer ofCivil Hospital Parbhani please to call on the medicaltreatment paper in respect of the petitioner.”2.Taking into consideration the chronology of the prayers,it appears that the prayer clause ‘B’ is the first prayer which thepetitioner is insisting and the subsequent prayer clauses ‘C’ to ‘F’ arethe subsequent prayers upon the registration of the offence as prayedby the petitioner.3.The petitioner’s contention is that he was unnecessarilyinvolved in Crime No.0468 of 2024, registered with Kotwali Police 4criwp No.288-2025Station, Parbhani, for the offences under Section 135 of theMaharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 126(2), 189(2) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In spite of incident that has beenallegedly taken place on 11.12.2024, the police have made atrocitiesagainst him. He was unnecessarily taken him custody. He was brutallybeaten and since he belongs to the member of scheduled caste,remarks were made and abuses were given in the name of caste. Hewas admitted to the hospital and he has taken treatment from11.12.2024 and discharged on 13.12.2024 from Civil Hospital,Parbhani.4.The petitioner’s further contention is that, thereafter, on19.12.2024, he had given a written complaint to Police Inspector,New Mondha Police Station, Parbhani and on the same date, he hadalso given a separate complaint to District Superintendent of Police,Parbhani, when his complaint was not taken. Since the atrocities havebeen done, the petitioner says that directions are required to be givenfor the registration of offence. It is then also submitted that when hewas arrested, the reasons for arrest were not given and there isviolation of his fundamental rights. The CCTV footage has not beencollected which would have shown he was absolutely not involved inthe said crime in which he has been shown to be arrested. 5criwp No.288-20255.As regards the directions to be issued for registration ofthe offence either by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitutionof India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), we are considering the decision inSakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2008 (2) SCC 409. Then, weare also considering the decision in Sudhir Bhaskar Tambe Vs.Hemant Yashwant Dhage, 2016 (6) SCC 277.6.In Sakiri Vasu (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasheld that “if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not beenregistered by the police, or having been registered, properinvestigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrievedperson is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned underSection 156(3) of Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3)of Cr.PC. is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he candirect the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, hecan direct proper investigation to be done which includes in hisdiscretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of theinvestigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in thematter.” 6criwp No.288-20257.In Sudhir Tambe (Supra), it has been further observedthat “we have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we havefound in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded withwrit petitions praying for registration of the first information report orpraying for a proper investigation.We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertainsuch writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitionsand will not be able to do any other work except dealing with suchwrit petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must availof his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned underSection 156 of Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, ifprima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information reportand also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can alsomonitor the investigation. 8.These two decisions are later on reiterated inM. Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki, 2020 (16) SCC 728. Therefore, takinginto consideration this settled position of law, we are of the opinionthat this Court cannot direct registration of the first informationreport in the matter. However, as the course was adopted inM. Subramaniam (Supra) that liberty was granted to the petitioner toapproach the Magistrate and then the Magistrate to take his own 7criwp No.288-2025decision, we keep the same liberty open to the petitioner herein toapproach the concerned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of BNSS(old Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.) We clarify that we not express anyopinion as regards the merit of the case. But if the petitionerapproaches the Magistrate as aforesaid, then the Magistrate to decidethe said application as per the provision of law. With theseobservations, we dispose of the writ petition at the threshold. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd