Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O Ratan Karmavat vs State Of Maharashtra, P.S.O. P.S. ... on 11 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp37.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 37 OF 2016
Rajesh S/o. Ratan Karmavat,
Aged about 45 years, Occupation :
Labour, R/o. Shankarpura,
Bhavanjipura, Tah. Hindoli,
District : Bundi, State of Rajasthan.
ig .... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Police Station Officer, P.S.Wani,
Tq. Wani, District : Yavatmal.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri R.M.Patwardhan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri S.M.Bhagde, Advocate for Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : APRIL 11, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Judgment 2 wp37.16.odt
3. The petitioner (father of the victim) has challenged the order
passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956")
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for custody of the victim and
directing that the victim be kept in a Protective Home for one year from the
date of the order. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the
Sessions Court dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner.
4. The Police Station, Wani registered Crime No. 3100 of 2015 for
the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act of 1956 and
three girls (including the daughter of the petitioner) are rescued on 6 th April,
2015 from the custody of the concerned accused. The victim girls were kept
in Sarswati Shikshan Mahila Mandal's 'Stree Aadhar Kendra', Krishna Nagar
Chowk, Mul Road, Chandrapur. The victim girls were produced before the
Magistrate on 11th April, 2015 for orders regarding custody for the purpose of
their safety and protection.
5. The learned Magistrate had passed order under Section 17(2)
of the Act of 1956 directing the Probationary Officer to make enquiry as to
the suitability of the claimants/guardians and to submit report and the
directions were given to keep the victims in Remand Home. As the report of
the Probationary Officer was not received and as the victim cannot be kept in
the interim custody for the period exceeding three weeks as per second
Judgment 3 wp37.16.odt
proviso below sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act of 1956 and as the
report of Probationary Officer was not received, the learned Magistrate
passed order dated 30th April, 2015 directing that the victim be kept in
nearest Protective Home for the period of one year from the date of the order
and the application filed by the petitioner praying for custody of his
daughter was rejected.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned Magistrate, filed revision application before the Sessions Court,
which is dismissed by the order dated 30 th October, 2015. The petitioner,
being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this petition.
6. Shri R.M. Patwardhan, advocate for the petitioner has
submitted that without there being any report of the Probationary Officer
under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1956, the learned Magistrate could not
have passed the order under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1956 directing that
the victim be kept in the nearest Protective Home for the period of one year.
To support this submission, the learned advocate has relied on the judgment
given in the case of Renuka Durgappa Kamble vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri)143. It is further submitted that the
petitioner, being father of the victim, is entitled for the custody of the victim
and failure on the part of the subordinate Courts to appreciate this aspect,
vitiates the orders passed by them. It is submitted that the subordinate
Judgment 4 wp37.16.odt
Courts have also not considered that the petitioner has right to seek custody
of the victim after the reply of the report of the Probationery Officer, if
nothing adverse is found against the petitioner. It is prayed that the
impugned orders be set aside and the custody of the victim be given to the
petitioner.
7. Shri S.M. Bhagde, learned A.P.P. has supported the impugned
orders. It is submitted that the victim is aged about 21 years and she has not
made any grievance against the directions given by the learned Magistrate
that she should be kept in Protective Home for one year. Challenging the
locus of the petitioner to maintain the petition, the learned A.P.P. has
submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner is 'aggrieved person'. The
learned A.P.P. has pointed out that the daughter of the petitioner was
previously also rescued by a N.G.O. It is prayed that the petition be
dismissed with costs.
8. Considering the fact that the victim (daughter of the petitioner)
is undisputedly aged about 21 years and is major and that the victim has not
made any grievance against the impugned orders, I find substance in the
submissions made on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner cannot be
said to be the "aggrieved person" and the petition at his behest is not
maintainable.
Judgment 5 wp37.16.odt
In view of the conclusion on the above point, the judgment
relied upon by the advocate of the petitioner is not required to be considered.
The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to
bear their own costs.
ig JUDGE
RRaut..
