Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde v. N B Ranagat And ORS

Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Date:

2025.02.17 12:05:06 +0530 SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.223 OF 2024 Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde ... Petitioner

Versus

N. B. Ranagat & Ors.

... Respondents Mr. A. S. Pai i/b Ms. Varsha Bhosale for the Petitioner Mr. Abhishek Karnik i/b Mr. Nagesh Khedkar for the Respondent No. 1 Ms. Sampada S. Patil i/b Mr. Nagesh Khedkar for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mrs. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5-State CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

WEDNESDAY, 12 th FEBRUARY 2025 P.C :

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 5-Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural, to take strict disciplinary action against respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for breach of their statutory obligation under the provisions of the 1/4

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

On 29th January 2025, we had passed the following order:

"1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks time to take instructions, as to whether a complaint has been made to the State Police Complaints Authority/the Divisional Police Complaints Authority. If the same is made, learned counsel for the Petitioner to place a copy of the said complaint before us on the next date.

2. Stand over to 12th February 2025."

Today, Mrs. Shinde, learned A.P.P., informs us that a Divisional Police Complaints Authority is in place and is fully operational. She submits that, given the availability of an alternative remedy for action against the concerned Police Officer, the Petitioner should approach the said Authority rather than pursuing the present petition.

2/4

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also states that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appropriate complaint before the Divisional Police Complaints Authority.

In view of the objection raised by the learned A.P.P and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy, we are not inclined to entertain this petition.

Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the State Police Complaints Authority or the Divisional Police Complaints Authority, as the case may be, by filing an appropriate complaint.

Needless to also state that we have not gone into the 3/4

merits of the allegations made by the petitioner against the officers and as such, all contentions of all parties are kept open. We also make it clear that in the event, the petitioner files a complaint before the said Authority, the said Authority will decide the petitioner's complaint expeditiously and in any event, within six months of the filing of the complaint, since the petitioner is pursuing the aforesaid petition since 2023. The petition is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. 4/4