Abhijeet Kumar Sathe v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1015 OF 2024 Abhijeet Kumar Sathe ] Appellant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

] Respondents .....

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w Mr. Samay Pawar i/b Ms. Sakshi S. Mane, for Appellant.

Mr.H. S. Venegavkar, Chief Public Prosecutor a/w Mr. P. H. Gaikwad and Mr. P.P. Jadhav, APP, for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Tejas Mane, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Bhausaheb Kailas Dhole, ACP (EOW), Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai, present.

Mr. Sunil Pujari, SDPO, Haveli (Pune Rural), present. .....

CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.

DATE : 12th FEBRUARY, 2025.

P.C.

Heard Mr. Venegavkar, learned Chief Public Prosecutor, Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mane learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

I have also perused the Station Diary placed before me for REKHA PRAKASH PATIL REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2025.02.14 15:42:20 +0530

perusal from Paud Police Station dated 8th December, 2022. It reveals that the appellant, who is admittedly a member of Scheduled Caste informed the police that presently he was not intending to lodge any complaint. After taking advice of his Advocate, he would consider about the same and, therefore, the written complaint tendered by the appellant came to be filed. Mr. Dhole, investigating officer, is also present in the Court today.

Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant would invite my attention to the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, under S.C. and S.T. Act, Pune, on application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code ("Cr.P.C.") preferred by the appellant. The learned Judge outrightly rejected the same. Mr. Joshi would submit that the learned Special Judge committed a patent illegality by rejecting the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. wherein the Judge could have proceeded under Chapter XV of the Cr. P.C. by examining the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Venegavkar is ad-idem to the said submission of Mr. Joshi. Even, perusal of the impugned order, especially para 7,

indicates that the learned Special Judge after going through the entire complaint arrived at a conclusion that it was a monitory transaction and there is also a civil dispute between the parties and, therefore, observed that the application is not tenable and since there was no prima facie case made out against the respondents, his application was rejected.

As a matter of fact, the learned Special Judge, instead of disposing of the complaint ought to have proceeded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge has committed a serious error in law in disposing of the complaint finally from the file of his Court.

This being an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this Court can very well interfere into the said order of dismissal of the said complaint and as such, the order of dismissal of complaint is quashed and set aside. The complaint is restored to file of the learned Sessions Judge.

In view of the ratio laid down in the case of Aleque Padamsee

and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171, learned Special Judge shall proceed further in accordance with law by giving due opportunity to the complainant to examine himself in view of Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. Consequently, the following order is passed;

ORDER

a) Appeal is allowed.

b) The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

c) The complaint is restored to it's original file. d) The learned Special Judge is directed to proceed further in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Aleque Padamsee and Others (supra) and also in view of the Chapter XV of the Cr. P.C.

Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]