Bombay High Court
Siddharth S/O Haridas Wasnik And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 27 October, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
27.10.wp.707.16
1
THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.707/2016
(Mr. Siddarth s/o Haridas Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra and others )
..............................................................................................................................................
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order
of directions and Registrar's orders
..............................................................................................................................................
Mrs.B.M.Kasare, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs.K.S. Joshi, Asst.Public Prosecutor for Respondents 1, 2 & 5
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
ig & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : 27th October, 2016.
Heard.
During hearing, we opened the file sealed earlier as
per the order dated 15th October, 2016. File was seen by
learned A.P.P. We direct that it should be resealed again and
shall not be opened till further orders in the matter.
The orders of this Court dated 15th October, 2016
requiring the respondent no.3 to file responsible affidavit
by 20.10.2016 have not been complied with, till date.
An affidavit sworn by respondent no.3 on 20th
October, 2016 itself is shown to this Court and learned
A.P.P. attempts to explain that on 20th October, 2016 when
the matter was called out, it was adjourned by consent and
a copy of affidavit was to be served upon the counsel for
the petitioner.
There is some dispute between the parties as to why
the affidavit could not be served upon the learned
counsel. Looking to the order which we propose to pass, in
facts presented to us, the said controversy need not be gone
27.10.wp.707.16
into at this stage. We direct the petitioner to accept the
copy of affidavit.
The learned A.P.P. has submitted that on 20th October,
2016 the respondent no.3 has entrusted complaints of
petitioner about ragging her, to a Committee of five
persons, which was constituted some time in July 2016.
Report of that Committee dated 26.10.2016 is also shown to
this Court. Photocopy of report dated 26.10.2016 is taken
on record as Exh. "X".
The said report shows that the matter was entrusted
to a Committee consisting of Dr.Chandragupt Dudhe, Dr.
Kishor Patil, Dr. Chhaya Patil and Dr.Surajsingh Yeotikar,
with President/Chairman as Dr. Chandrashekhar Chaudhari.
This Committee of five persons styled as Anti Ragging
Committee had submitted its report on 26.10.2016. The
Committee mentions that on 21.10.2016 neither complaint
nor anybody on her behalf remained present before it.
Perusal of additional affidavit sworn by Mr. Umesh
Gajbhiye on 26th October 2016 shows that he was under an
impression that date of appearance before the Anti Ragging
Committee was 25.10.2016.
As facts turned out, the said date was 21.10.2016
only. In said affidavit, Shri Gajbhiye, has pointed out that
said notice was received on 24.10.2016 i.e. three days after
the date scheduled for appearance and, as such, the
petitioner or anybody on her behalf could not have
appeared on 21.10.2016. The complainant-student in the
matter is a minor and therefore notice should have been
served on her guardian Mr. Umesh Gajbhiye. The report
dated 26.10.2016, therefore, is legally unsustainable.
27.10.wp.707.16
In view of this development, learned A.P.P. has stated
that respondents are ready and willing to hold fresh
proceedings of Anti Ragging Committee.
Advocate Kasare appearing for the petitioners has
pointed out that grievance is pending since first week of
September, 2016 before this Court and the complaint into
the matter was made to respondent no.3, on 3rd August,
2016.
All these dates are on record. As per the mandate of
Section 6 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act,
1999 there has to be an enquiry.
Advocate Kasare has further pointed out that the
complainant-student has to undertake examination which
commences from 6th November, 2016.
As examination will be over in first week of
December, 2016, we direct the Anti Ragging Committee
mentioned supra, to hold its first sitting on 13th December,
2016 and to complete the enquiry within next one week.
The matter shall be placed for fresh consideration of
st
this Court on 21 December,2016 with copy of report of
the Committee.
All contentions raised by Advocate Kasare are kept
open and shall be looked into at that juncture.
Steno copy of the order be given to the respective
parties.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
