1 crwp791.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.791/2016
Ashatai Vitthal Manwar,
aged 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Gunj, Tq. Mahagaon,
Dist. Yavatmal. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, thr.
PSO Mahagaon, Tq. Mahagaon,
Dist. Yavatmal
2. Dr. Ashwini S. Patil,
Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Police Station, Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3. Arvind Yemaji Jadhav,
Head Master, Manohar Naik
Vidyalaya, Gunj, Tq. Mahagaon,
Dist. Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and 2.
Mr. R. Dhore, Advocate for respondent no.3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED :- APRIL 17, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2017 01:13:57 :::
2 crwp791.16.odt
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the report lodged by the complainant on 02.02.2014. The assertions therein prima facie show that an offence under Section 3 (i) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
3. The learned A.P.P. has urged that as the charge-sheet is already submitted, the petitioner can move the trial court for examining her grievance.
4. Mr. Dhore, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3, submits that independent verification by the Investigating Officer does not show that these offences are made out. He also adds that on the basis of the powers available to him, the Investigating Officer, after due verification, submitted the charge-sheet.
5. The learned A.P.P. has invited our attention to the fact that the eye witnesses examined during the investigation do not support the assertions of the petitioner. ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2017 01:13:57 :::
3 crwp791.16.odt
6. Inconsistency in the statements or sufficiency of statement of victim alone in such matters can be looked into by the competent court while adjudicating the controversy.
7. We, therefore, direct the respondent no.1 to file an additional charge-sheet within three weeks from today. Needless to mention that all defences raised by the respondents are kept open and are not eclipsed by this order.
With these directions, the writ petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.) kahale ::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2017 01:13:57 :::