Bombay High Court
Rewaram S/O. Gowardhan ... vs Shankarlal S/O. Sukhlal Pardeshi ... on 28 November, 2017
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere
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
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
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
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
