Bombay High Court
Supriya Nirmal Mandal And Others vs Saptarshi Nirmalchand Mandal ... on 16 June, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 crwp59.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.50/2017
1. Supriya Nirmal Mandal,
aged 41 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Rai Vatika, Plot No.1,
Khadgaon Road, Wadi, Nagpur.
2. Nirmalchand Sanshodhar Mandal,
aged 70 years, Occ. Retired,
r/o Jairaj Nagar, Tukum Chandrapur.
3. Shilpi Nirmalchand Mandal,
aged 35 years, Occ. Teacher,
r/o Jairaj Nagar, Tukum, Chandrapur. .....PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. Saptarshi Nirmalchand Mandal
(deleted as per order dated 10.02.2017)
2. State of Maharashtra, through PSO
P. S. Ram Nagar, Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. L. Alone, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, A.P.P. for respondent no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 16.06.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2 crwp59.17.odt
2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the
order passed below Exh.-1 by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandrapur in Misc. Criminal Case No.843/2016
which was filed on behalf of the present petitioners under Section
19 of the Mental Health Act. According to the petitioners, who are
sisters and father of one Saptarshi Nirmalchand Mandal, aged 39
years, (hereinafter referred to as the "Said Person") is mentally ill
person and therefore a prayer was made that he be admitted in
the mental hospital. On 04.11.2016, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate passed an order. By that order, he directed that the
said person be sent to Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur for observation
for a period which may be required by the Civil Surgeon but not
more than 7 days. Accordingly, the said person was sent for
observation to the Civil Surgeon.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
said person was under observation only for a period of 4 days and
not for a period of 7 days as directed in the order dated
04.11.2016. This particular submission is, in my view, highly
misconceived since the said order reads that "Hence it is directed
that he be sent to Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur for observation for a
3 crwp59.17.odt
period as may be required by the Civil Surgeon but not more than 7
days.."
After observing the said person for 4 days, he was
discharged and the Discharge Card was placed before the learned
Magistrate.
4. On 07.11.2016, when the said person was produced,
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had gone through the
Discharge Card and the observations shows that the Doctors have
pointed out to the Court that the medicines were given to the said
person and his condition was good. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, thereafter personally interviewed the said person and
observed that the behaviour of the said person cannot be termed
as abnormal and therefore he refused to exercise the power for
sending the said person to mental asylum.
The learned A.P.P. supports the order passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandarpur.
5. After perusal of the order passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, it is crystal clear that the medical
report about the said person was placed before the learned Chief
4 crwp59.17.odt
Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate not
only perused the said medical report but also personally satisfied
about the mental condition of the said person. His subjective
satisfaction, which he has arrived was the based on the questions
which he put to the said person. I do not find any reason to
interfere with the observations in the order passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate in the circumstances of the present case.
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
kahale
