Ashatai Vitthal Manwar vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1771 Bom

                                                    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.

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.

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