2811WP6.17-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6 OF 2017
PETITIONERS :- 1) Rewaram S/o Gowardhan Chakrawarti,
Aged 72 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
2) Sau.Chandrakala Rewaram Chakrawarti,
Aged 65 years, Occup. Household,
3) Narendra S/o Rewaram Chakrawarti, Aged
42 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
4) Rajendra S/o Rewaram Chakrawarti, Aged
35 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
5) Surendra S/o Rewaram Chakrawarti, Aged
32 years, Occupation : Agriculturist,
6) Mahendra S/o Rewaram Chakrawarti, Aged
30 years, Occupation : Medical Practitioner,
All Nos.1 to 4 & 6 R/o Bacchera, Tah.
Parshioni, District Nagpur and
Petitioner No.5 R/o. Plot No.26, Mata Nagar,
Godhani Road, Zingabai Takli, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Shankarlal S/o Sukhlal Pardeshi, Aged
about 49 years, Occupation : Advocate, R/o.
Ward No.3, Parshioni, Tah. Parshioni,
District Nagpur.
2) State of Maharashtra, Through Police
Station Officer, Police Station Parshioni,
District Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. D. Karode, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. P. S. Sahare, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr. A. R. Chutake, A.P. P. for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:36:39 :::
2811WP6.17-Judgment 2/5
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATED : 28.11.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 23/11/2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parshioni in Reg.Cri.Case No.35 of 2016, by which process was issued as against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the respondent No.1 i.e. the complainant had no locus standi to file a private complaint i.e. Reg.Cri.Case No.35 of 2016, as against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shamim Bano d/o. Janu Mohd. Pathan & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1192 as well as the judgment in the case of Vilas s/o Rambhau Majrikar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 4025 in support of his submission. He submitted, that under section 11(2) read with section 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:36:39 ::: 2811WP6.17-Judgment 3/5 Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2000'), a private complaint could only be filed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee or its Authorized Officer. He further submitted, that even the provisions of sections 2(1)(c), 6 and 9 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Black Magic Act') are not attracted to the facts of the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 fairly submits, that the respondent No.1-complainant had no locus standi to file a private complaint against the petitioners under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and that the present case was squarely covered by the aforesaid two judgments. He, however, submits that the complaint is maintainable under the Black Magic Act.
5. Perused the papers as well as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent No.1 filed a private complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parshioni, as against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under sections, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 204, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. and sections 2(1)(c), 6 and 9 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:36:39 ::: 2811WP6.17-Judgment 4/5 Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act. According to the respondent No.1-complainant, the petitioners had obtained a forged caste certificate by furnishing false information and/or by fraudulent means had taken advantage of several Government Schemes. It is not in dispute that under section 11(2) read with section 12 of the Act of 2000, a private complaint can only be filed by the Scrutiny Committee or by any other officer duly authorized by it. Admittedly, there is no order passed either by the Scrutiny Committee or by any Court directing the lodgment of prosecution against the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2000. In the light of both the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.1 had no locus standi to file a complaint as against the petitioners. Both the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the same is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
6. As far as the prosecution under sections 2(1)(c), 6 and 9 of the Black Magic Act is concerned, a perusal of the said sections show, that the same are not applicable. Section 2(1)(c) defines the term 'prescribed', whereas, section 6 is with respect to the powers of entrance, search, etc. and section 9 states that the Act shall be in addition to and ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:36:39 ::: 2811WP6.17-Judgment 5/5 not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Admittedly, none of these sections are penalizing sections. Considering the aforesaid, the order issuing process against the petitioners is perverse and unsustainable in law.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23/11/2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parshioni in Reg.Cri.Case No.35 of 2016 is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent No.1-complainant i.e. Reg.Cri.Case No.35 of 2016 stands dismissed.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:36:39 :::