Rama Arvind Katarnaware v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.8 OF 2025 Rama Arvind Katarnaware .. Petitioner Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents ...
Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL Date:
2025.11.18 18:42:01 +0530 BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL Mr. Aditya A. Katarnaware, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, I/c. PP with Mr. J. P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1-State ...
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 11th NOVEMBER 2025 P.C. :
Stating that he has not filed any other petition in this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or any other Court in respect of the reliefs sought herein, the petitioner has made prayers on varied issues running from clauses (a) to (r) from page no.16 to page no.22. Not only that, the petitioner has also made a statement in paragraph no.8 to the effect that constitutional authorities like the Chief Minister, Home Minister, Finance Minister and Minister In-Charge of Social Justice Special Assistance Department, Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Director General of Police have failed to perform their duties for providing justice and protecting the statutory rights of the victims.
2.
On a previous occasion, in Criminal Writ Petition No.5284 of 2022 filed by the present petitioner, the following prayers were made:
Page | 1
"(a) This Hon'ble Court may pass a writ of Mandamus to the concern Police Authority to take legal action against the respondents, according to the procedure established by law with respect to the complaints dated 22/11/2022, 23/11/2022 & 25/11/2022.
(b) This Hon'ble Court may direct the Kurla Police Authority to restore and produce the CCTV footage of entire Kurla Police Station Premises dated 22/11/2022 with respect to application dated 22/11/2022 with AnnexureB". 3.
This Court, by an order dated 20th March 2023 dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: "1.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
2.
By this petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers :- "a.
This Hon'ble Court may pass a writ of Mandamus to the concern Police Authority to take legal action against the respondents, according to the procedure established by law with respect to the complaints dated 22/11/2022, 23/11/2022 & 25/11/2022. b.
This Hon'ble Court may direct the Kurla Police Authority to restore and produce the CCTV footage of entire Kurla Police Station Premises dated 22/11/2022 with respect to application dated 22/11/2022 with Annexure-B."
3.
The reason for making such prayers in this petition is that, the petitioner considers certain statements made in the public addresses, given by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, to be disrespectful to the dead persons, who were political figures in Indian Society and who were held in high esteem by members of the Society in general and by the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, in particular.
4.
In support of the case put forward by the petitioner for issuing necessary directions to the police, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the complaint made by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-V, Mahim, Mumbai in this regard, which starts from page 20 (Annexure-D) in the proceedings. We are of the opinion that the statements allegedly made by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and which are considered to be objectionable by the petitioner, do notprima-facie constitute any offence, much less the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5.
These statements, which are reproduced in the complaint (AnnexureD), are as follows :- शिवाजीतोपुराणेयुगकीबातहे- आबमैआताहूउत्तरदेनेकेलीयेदेखीये जोउन्होंनेकहनेकाiz;kl शिकयाकीसावरकरजीनेमाफीमांगीहैतो Page | 2
माफीनामेकीजोबातहैवोतोउसज़मानेमैबोहोतसेलोगएकizs सक्राईब फॉeZV पेबाहरfu कलनेकेलीयेमाफीमांगतेथेछ= पतीशिवजीने५बार प= शिलखाथाऔरंगजेबकोतोउसकामतलबD;k 'k पथतोनहींलीना fczfV'k संfo धानकीबताइये२शिसतम्बर१९४६कोअंतशिरमसरकारके- कल्पना करोकीसाfo=h बाईकेसदी१०सालमैकरदीगईऔरऊनकेपशित१३साल के थेअबजबकल्पनाकरो२लडके& लडशिकयामुलगा& मुलगीD;k करते होंगे'kknh करनेकेबादD;k सोचतेहोंगेतोएकiz कारसेवोकालखंडहम केवलewrhZ केआगेiz णामकरतेहैवाहाफूलचढादेउतनानहींबलकीथोड़ा इशितहासकोपढ़णेकाइशितहासकोपढ़करकेइशितहाससेशिसखनेकाभीआऊसर है- लोगोसेकेहताहूमहाराष्ट्मैकीभाईमहाराष्ट्मैfo'ks"k करके मुंबई ठाणेयहाहैगुजरातीयोकोfudky दोऔरराजस्थाfu योंकोfu कालदोतो तुम्हारेयहाकोईपैसेबचेगाहीनहींयेराजधानीजोहैजोकेहलातीहै आशिथBकराजधानीआशिथBकराजधानीकहलायेगीनही- 6.
An in depth consideration of the referred statements would tell us that they are in the nature of the analysis of history and the lessons to be learnt from the history. They also show the intention of the speaker, which is that atleast in the present times, we should learn from the history and also realize the consequences of following certain traditions and what may happen perhaps for the worst, if those traditions are followed. These statements primarily reflect the perception and opinion of speaker about those figures with an intention to persuade the audience, to whom they have been expressed, to think over and act in a way which is good for Society. The intention behind the statements appears to be of enlightenment of the Society for its betterment, as perceived by the speaker. These statements, therefore, cannot be seen, by any stretch of imagination, to be disrespectful to any great person, held in high esteem by the members of the Society in general and by the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in particular.
7.
In view of above, the statements, which were made, do notprima-facie constitute any offence punishable under the Atrocities Act or any other criminal law.
8.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are highly powerful and influential authorities, when he calls them to be "highly political" and Respondent No. 2, being Governor and Respondent No. 3, being the Member of Parliament, enjoy the immunity under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, 1949 and therefore, according to the learned Counsel for petitioner, it is only a Constitutional Court like this, which can issue appropriate directions for registration of the offences and monitor the progress of investigation.
9.
In so far as the powers of this Court are concerned, there can be no second opinion. This Court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can certainly issue the directions for upholding the cause of justice and this also includes registration of the FIR and if necessary, for monitoring the investigation. But, the question is as to whether or not such a power be invoked by the petitioner here? and this question we answer as in the negative. The reason being that, we do not see Page | 3
prima-facie constitution of any of the alleged offences on the basis of the alleged objectionable statements, a detailed discussion about which is already made by us in the earlier paragraphs.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed" 4.
In another petition vide Criminal Writ Petition (St) No.13300 of 2024 prosecuted by Mr. Aditya A. Katarnaware, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which was for direction to the Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation and Income Tax Authorities to investigate the alleged crime, this Court, while dismissing the writ petition on 5th September 2024 made the following observations:
"5.
We, in the facts, do not find that the petitioner's right is either violated in any way, or her fundamental right infringed, warranting us to exercise our discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 5.
Before proceeding further, we may indicate that the petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition (St) No.13300 of 2024 claiming himself as a member of the Inspirational Group Welfare Association. However, the present petition labelled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity without disclosing the previous proceedings and a reason why this PIL petition is not filed through the Inspirational Group Welfare Association.
6.
In view of the aforesaid proceedings, the present petition does not seem to be a bona fide proceeding. The petitioner has approached this Court time and again with different but some what related prayers. Such an approach of a litigant may amount to abusing the process of the Court.
7.
Criminal Public Interest Litigation No.8 of 2025 is dismissed. [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] Page | 4