Sou Rama Hemu Ghodke And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7202 Bom

                                         (1)                         crwp1157.09

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD


               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1157 OF 2009
                                 WITH
                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2795 OF 2010


1.    Sou. Rama w/o. Hemu Ghodke,         ..                     Petitioners
      Age. 55 years, Occ. Household & trade
      R/o. Ward No.7, near New English
      School, Shrirampur, at/post/taluka
      Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.    Tina d/o. Hemu Ghodke,
      Age. 19 years, Occ. Education & Household,
      R/o. Ward No.7, Near New English School,
      Shrirampur, at/post/taluka Shrirampur,
      Dist. Ahmednagar.

3.    Annu d/o. Hemu Ghodke,
      Age. 18 years, Occ. Education & Household,
      R/o. Ward No.7, Near New English School,
      Shrirampur, at/post/taluka Shrirampur,
      Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.    Nisha d/o. Hemu Ghodke,
      Age. 19 years, Occ. Education
      R/o. As petitioner No.1.

      [Amendment carried out as per Court
      order dated 13.02.2014 in Criminal
      application No.572 of 2014.  Added
      as petitioner No.4]



                                Versus




     ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:10:18 :::
                                     (2)                           crwp1157.09


1.    The State of Maharashtra                       ..       Respondents

2.    The Superintendent of Police,
      S.P. Office, Ahmednagar,
      Dist. Ahmednagar.

3.    The Police Inspector,
      City Police Station Shrirampur,
      At/post/taluka Shrirampur,
      Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.    The Taluka Executive Magistrate,
      Shrirampur, At/post/taluka Shrirampur,
      Dist. Ahmednagar.

5.    Dinkar s/o. Limbaji Morey,
      Age. 43 years, Occ. Business,

6.    Shriram s/o. Limbaji Morey,
      Age. 61 years, Occ. Business,

7.    Suresh s/o. Shriram Morey,
      Age. 35 years, Occ. Business,

8.    Sunita w/o. Dinkar Morey,
      Age. 40 years, Occ. Household,

      All R/o. Shrirampur, Ward No.7,
      near New English School, Shrirampur,
      Dist. Ahmednagar.

Mr.Shaikh Aftab S., Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.J.Salgare, A.P.P. for respondents/State.
Mr.K.B.Autade, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 8 absent.

                                    CORAM :  T.V.NALAWADE &
                                             S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

DATED : 15.09.2017

(3) crwp1157.09

JUDGMENT : [PER : S.M. GAVHANE, J.] :-

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under

Articles 14,19,21 and 226 of the Constitution of India

mainly for following prayers (C) and (D) of the petition.

(C) That, the compensation of Rupees One Lac each for petitioner Nos.1 to 4 i.e. totally Rupees Four Lacs be granted in favour of the petitioners on account of gross violation of their various fundamental rights for causing illegal detention by the Government through police authorities and the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

(D) That the respondents be punished and the petitioners be compensated as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and just.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as

under :-

A]             Respondent   Nos.2   and   3   respectively   are   the 





                                     (4)                          crwp1157.09

Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar and the Police

Inspector of City Police Station, Shrirampur, Dist.

Ahmednagar, while respondent No.4 is the Taluka Executive

Magistrate, Shrirampur. The respondent Nos.5 to 8 are

the persons at whose instance Chapter Case bearing No.98

of 2009 was filed against the petitioners.

B] The petitioners are permanent residents of

Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar and they are from same

family. They reside in House No.98 within limits of

Municipal Council, Shrirampur. Respondent No.5 and others

particularly respondent Nos.6 to 8 had raised dispute in

respect of premises and house of the petitioners and

filed Suit bearing R.C.S No.86 of 1995 [Dinkar Limbaji

Morey and others Vs. Hemu Sanna Ghodke and others] in the

Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrirampur. It

was dismissed on 02.05.2000. Regular Civil Appeal No.121

of 2000 was filed against the dismissal of the said suit

in the Court of Additional District Judge, Shrirampur and

the parties arrived at compromise. The compromise

(5) crwp1157.09

petition was filed on 04.05.2000 in the execution

petition.

C] Respondent No.5 - Dinkar Morey with others

raised quarrel frequently with the petitioners to oust

the petitioners from their house/premises possessed by

them since last 35 years, on the ground that they are

from Gujarat State, so also to cause mental and physical

agony to them. Many criminal cases i.e. applications

have been filed by the said respondents to the concerned

police station for no fault of the petitioners. They

have been constantly compelled to face police atrocities

and misbehaviour of the persons. The police did not take

any action or cognizance of written or oral complaint

filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioner

No.1 herself made a representation up to the Senior

Police Officer, but of no use.

D] It is alleged that respondent No.8 - Savita

Dinkar Morey and respondent No.5-Dinkar Limbaji Morey

(6) crwp1157.09

filed complaint at City Police Station, Shrirampur on

25.07.2009, as a result of which Police Officer and other

policemen from said police station caused arrest of the

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 as well as petitioner No.1's minor

daughter - petitioner No.4, namely, Nisha d/o. Hemu

Ghodke, aged 14 years, in Chapter Case No.98 of 2009 in

City Police Station, Shrirampur under section 151 and 107

of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "CrPC"] on

25.07.2009 in the evening hours and after arrest, put the

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in jail for whole night and on

subsequent day, police constable Ambekar, Bakkal No.731

produced them before the Taluka Executive Magistrate,

Shrirampur [respondent No.4], who ordered to furnish

surety of Rs.5000/- each by the said petitioners, which

could not be furnished by the petitioners and minor Nisha

d/o. Hemu Ghodke [petitioner No.4] were further detained

in jail. The date of birth of petitioner No.4-Nisha is

11.03.1994.

E]             According to the petitioners, Chapter Case No.98 





                                     (7)                           crwp1157.09

of 2009 was sent to the Taluka Executive Magistrate by

Outward No.100 of 2009 dated 26.07.2009, in which names

of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 including name of Nisha Ghodke

[petitioner No.4] do appear. It is alleged that

petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were arrested and confined in jail

at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 4, which is

totally in violation of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and it is a speaking example of

police atrocities i.e. atrocities caused by the

respondents.

F] The petitioners contend that at no point of time

they were given chance to show cause against furnishing

of bonds. As per Scheme of Chapter VII of the CrPC, the

Magistrate who is acting under sections 107, 108 and 110

of CrPC has to give show cause notice under such sections

and shall have to make order in writing. Thus, while the

Magistrate takes action under section 111 of the CrPC, he

has no power to arrest or detain a person. His power is

to issue Show Cause Notice and if necessary start

(8) crwp1157.09

enquiry. During enquiry, a person should be asked to

give bond and if he refused to give bond, then said

person may be sent to custody till the enquiry is

completed and final order can be passed under section 117

of the CrPC. Even if a person who is directed to give

bond and if he failed to give bond, he cannot be sent to

jail, unless some sort of enquiry is conducted, as held

by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub

Divisional magistrate, AIR 1971 SC 2486.

3. Affidavit-in-reply of Nayab Tahsildar,

Shrirampur is filed on behalf the respondents/State. It

is stated in the affidavit that Chapter Case as stated by

the petitioners is pending before respondent No.4. The

petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken against

them by notice dated 26.07.2009. Their claim is

misconceived and apparently contrary to the provisions of

law. Notice was issued to the petitioners as authority

found that the parties are agitating their claim and

there is apprehension that they may cause serious offence

(9) crwp1157.09

in relation to personality and action is taken to prevent

any such violation of any such illegal activity. The

petitioners and other party to the proceeding i.e. Smt.

Sunita Dinkar Morey [respondent No.8] are residing near

each other. There is dispute in relation to property in

Civil Court in suit bearing RCS No.40 of 2006. They are

annoyed due to said dispute. Therefore, they are making

complaints to the police station against each other.

They have been given understanding that the dispute

between them is of civil nature and it is subjudice and

that till the decision of the Civil dispute, they shall

not cause disturbance. However, they have not changed

their attitude and continued to make complaints against

each other. Therefore, as per powers vested under section

107 of the CrPC., case is registered against them bearing

Case No.81 of 2009. Thereafter, Chapter Case No.98 of

2009 is registered against the present petitioners. It is

further stated in the affidavit that instead of attending

the notice issued against them, the petitioners have

avoided to furnish surety and approached this Court. The

( 10 ) crwp1157.09

petitioners have suppressed material facts. The

complainant is not made party to the petition. When the

authorities found that there is apprehension to the

person and disturbance of peace, action is initiated

against the petitioners as preventive measures from

causing serious offence and to maintain peace. It is

stated that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Petitioner No.1-Sow. Rama Ghodke filed rejoinder

affidavit to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of

respondent No.1, dated 27.01.2010 stating that the Nayab

Tahsildar has suppressed true facts. He has totally made

false statements in para No.6 and the fact is that police

of City Police Station, Shrirampur arrested her and her

daughters - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 including her minor

daughter - petitioner No.4 on 25.07.2009 in the evening

hours and put them behind the bar and on the subsequent

day, Police Constable - Ambekar Bakkal No.731 produced

them before the Taluka Executive Magistrate, who ordered

for furnishing surety. It is stated that she [petitioner

( 11 ) crwp1157.09

No.1] and her daughters were illegally arrested, abusing

the powers and ignoring the mandatory provisions of the

relevant chapter proceeding cited in the judgment in the

case of Pravin Vijaykumar Taware & Ors. Vs. The Special

Executive Magistrate, Dist. Pune & Anr., 2009 ALL MR

(Cri) 2093.

5. On behalf of respondent No. 3- PHC-Tukaram

Ambekar has filed affidavit in reply on 27.08.2010

stating that respondent No.8 - Sunita Morey and

petitioner No.1 Rama Ghodake are residing in Ward No.7

near New English School Shrirampur, adjacent to each

other. There is dispute amongst them in respect of

landed property. Civil Suit bearing RCS No.40 of 2006 is

pending before the Civil Court Shrirampur. In view of

civil litigation pending between the rival parties, there

were quarrels amongst them on petty grounds and they used

to file complaints in the police station. The dispute

amongst them is of civil nature. Both the parties were

directed to get the matter decided before the Civil

( 12 ) crwp1157.09

Court, as the dispute is in respect of landed property.

Inspite of warning given to both the parties, they carry

on their dispute and did not change their attitude. One

Rama Hemu Ghodke made complaint to the Superintendent of

Police, Ahmednagar. Said complaint was received to City

Police Station, Shrirampur on 24.04.2009. As per the

directions of the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar,

A.S.I. Shri Shelar enquired into the said application and

registered Chapter Case No.81 of 2009 under section 107

of the CrPC against Sunita Dinkar More and other inmates.

After the registration of said Chapter Case, Sunita and

others were produced before the Taluka Executive

Magistrate for necessary action in respect of keeping

peace in the vicinity. A lady constable accompanied

Sunita. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply

that thereafter Sunita Morey filed complaint on

29.06.2009 at Shrirampur Police Station. On said

application, the then PI of Shrirampur Police Station

directed him to conduct enquiry. He conducted enquiry in

the above said application of Sunita. After enquiry, he

( 13 ) crwp1157.09

registered Chapter Case No.98 of 2009 under section 107

and 151 of CrPC against petitioners and they were

produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate on

26.07.2009. As there was apprehension in his mind that

the petitioners may commit physical offence, to preserve

law and order, he had arrested the petitioners. After

arrest of the petitioners, all of them were medically

examined and relatives were properly informed. He stated

that after production of the petitioners before the

Taluka Executive Magistrate, the Taluka Executive

Magistrate had released them on executing bond of good

behaviour. He stated that as contended by the

petitioners, one Nisha d/o. Hemu Ghodke [now petitioner

No.4] was minor, but at the time of arrest and producing

before Taluka Executive Magistrate, nobody disclosed or

protested that said Nisha was minor. He had acted in

good faith while discharging his duty without any malice

against the petitioners, stating that there is no merit

or substance in the petition, he stated that the same may

be dismissed.

( 14 ) crwp1157.09

6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners, learned A.P.P appearing for respondent Nos.

1 to 4 and none was present for respondent Nos.5 to 8.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners made

submissions in the light of contentions in the petition

that the Executive Magistrate has not followed the

procedure given in sections 107, 108, 111, 116 and 117 of

the CrPC and without giving an opportunity to the

petitioners to file their reply in the chapter proceeding

against them, illegally detained them, including

petitioner No.4, daughter of petitioner No.1, who was

minor at the relevant time. There is scribing and

scratches in respect of dates in the order passed on

notice dated 26.07.2009. It is submitted that respondent

No.4 - Taluka Executive Magistrate had no authority to

direct the petitioners to give interim bond pending the

chapter proceeding. It is submitted that the petitioners

were arrested on 25.07.2009 in the evening hours and put

in jail for whole night and on subsequent day, PHC

( 15 ) crwp1157.09

Ambekar produced them before respondent No.4 - Taluka

Executive Magistrate, who passed order to furnish surety

of Rs.5000/- each, but they could not furnish the same

immediately and therefore they were further detained in

jail. It is submitted that therefore compensation as

prayed for may be granted to the petitioners.

7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent Nos. 1

to 4 made submissions in the light of affidavit-in-reply

of Nayab Tahsildar submitted on behalf of respondent No.1

and affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3

- PHC Ambekar. It was fairly conceded by the learned APP

that after registration of the Chapter Case, the

petitioners were arrested as required under section 151

of the CrPC and they were produced before respondent No.4

- Taluka Executive Magistrate on 26.07.2009 and that

Chapter Case was registered on 25.07.2009.

8. Copy of report dated 26.07.2009 submitted by ASI

Shrirampur City Police Station to the Taluka Executive

( 16 ) crwp1157.09

Magistrate, Shrirampur shows that it is in respect of

registration of chapter Case No.98 of 2009 under sections

151 and 107 of CrPC on the basis of report given by the

PHC Ambekar requesting to take prohibitory action against

petitioners and to obtain bond of good behaviour from

them and to take interim bond from them as per section

116(3) of CrPC pending chapter proceeding. It appears

that on the said report, Nayab Tahsildar passed order on

26.07.2009.

vkt fn- 25/7/2009 jksth lkeusokyk 1 rs 4 ;kauk ek>s leksj nqikjh 12-35 oktrk iks-dkW- vkacsdj c-u- 731 ;kauh gtj dsys- tsyj tkehu ?;k- ukghrj 27/07/09 jksth eqnr n;k- P.R. Bond Rs.5000/- izR;sdh ?;k-

9. Before considering the aspect as to whether the

aforesaid order of respondent No.3 amounts to illegal

detention of the petitioners entitling them to

compensation, it is necessary to refer to the decisions

relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners. In the case of Pravin Vijaykumar Taware

[Supra], the observations of Division Bench of this Court

in paragraphs 6 and 9 are as under :-

( 17 ) crwp1157.09

6. At no point of time the petitioners were given a chance to show cause against the furnishing of bond and at no point of time they were also given a chance to arrange for the bond and the conditions imposed were such that it was impossible to get a bond from the Chairman with whom according to the petitioners, the petitioners had a dispute. This is absolutely indefensible. The scheme of Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code is that when a Magistrate acting under Sections 107, 108, 109 or 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such sections, he shall make an order in writing. Therefore, when the Magistrate takes action under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he has no power to arrest and detain a person. His power is to require to show cause and if necessary start an inquiry. Inquiry has to be done in terms of Section 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code and if at that stage the Magistrate is of the view that during the inquiry a person should be asked to give a bond and he refuses to give a bond then the person may be sent to custody till the inquiry is complete and final order can be passed under Section 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Now this section also has proviso. One of the proviso is, "No person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 108, section 109, or section 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour". Then the second proviso is that, "the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in the order under section 111".

9. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and also the Executive Magistrate, who was also present in the Court, we give benefit of doubt to the Magistrate on the ground that perhaps these Magistrates are not aware of the law. They are not trained to act as Magistrate. We understand they have not undergone any training before they were given the powers of a Magistrate. When a person is appointed or posted as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, he is almost mechanically

( 18 ) crwp1157.09

appointed as an Executive Magistrate and is given authority to execute powers under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the Government is not interested in taking away these powers from the Police Officers and handover the powers to judiciary or to revenue officials, we are inclined to give the following directions :

(1) That the State Government shall immediately take steps to train its all Executive Magistrates so that they understand as to how the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code have to be applied.

(2) We understand that there is a police academy in the State. All the Executive Magistrate should undergo a crash course. Preferably the Sessions Judges should be invited to teach these Magistrate about the nuances of law, so that the powers are not abused or misused by the Executive Magistrate. (3) Whenever, an order is passed by a Magistrate at interim stage or at final stage requiring a person to give a bond, he shall be given sufficient time to furnish the bond and the surety.

(4) At the stage of inquiry, the Magistrate shall not ask for an interim bond pending inquiry unless the Magistrate has satisfied himself about the truth of the information sufficient to make out a case for seeking a bond.

(5) Whenever, an Executive Magistrate passes an order under sub-section (3) of Section 116 of Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code directing a person to be sent to jail, a copy of the order shall be sent to the learned Principal Sessions Judge immediately.

(6) On receiving copy of the order, the learned Principal Sessions Judge shall go through the order and if he finds a case of revision, he may intervene under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(7) A copy of the order directing a person to be sent to jail under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code shall also be sent to the immediate superior of the Magistrate in his Department.

( 19 ) crwp1157.09

10. In the case of Niraj Ramesh Jariwala & Ors. Vs.

Mahadeo Pandurang Nikam & Ors., 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 1,

Division Bench of this Court has observed in paragraphs

18 and 20 as under :-

18. In the present case, the age of both the Petitioners (second and third Petitioners) is above 60 years. They were arrested at 20.50 on 2nd December 2011 at Aurangabad and were brought to Navghar Police Station, Mulund, Mumbai from Aurangabad at 20.20 on 3rd December 2011. They were taken from Aurangabad at 22.50 and they reached Navghar Police Station, Mulund, Mumbai, nearly after 22 hours. They were shown as arrested in the morning of 4th December 2011 and were released on bail in the afternoon. Though the said Petitioners were arrested just before 20.50 0n 2nd December 2011 at Aurangabad, they were shown as arrested in Mumbai at 08.10 on 4th December 2011. They were thus illegally detained by the Police nearly for 35 hours and 40 minutes. As they were not shown as arrested for a period over 35 hours, they could not apply for bail. Apart from gross violation of their fundamental rights, there is a gross breach of the directions issued by the Apex Court from time to time. There is no dispute about the facts. Therefore, in the present case, both the second and third Petitioners are entitled to reasonable compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- each. Interest payable on the said amount will be at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present Petition i.e. 28th February 2012.

20. Whether the first Respondent acted as per the instructions of the Senior Inspector of Police and whether the Senior Inspector of police has played any role are the matters which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that when the gross violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 of the Constitution of India at the hands of the police

( 20 ) crwp1157.09

officers of the State is established, the compensation will have to be paid by the State Government and it will be open for the State Government to recover the same from the officers found guilty of dereliction of duty by following due process of law. It is also necessary to direct the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to nominate either a Joint Commissioner of Police or Additional Commissioner of Police to hold an inquiry for ascertaining as to who is responsible for violation of fundamental rights of the second and third Petitioners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of the report, the State Government will have to initiate appropriate proceedings against the concerned erring police officers in accordance with law.

11. In the present case, it is clear from the order

of the Taluka Executive Magistrate dated 26.07.2009 that

before passing said order directing the petitioners to

give bond of good behaviour and to take interim bond from

them as per section 116(3) of CrPC, pending chapter

proceeding, no show cause notice was given to them

against furnishing of bond in the light of provisions

under section 116 of CrPC and in the light of

observations of this Court in the case of Pravin

Vijaykumar Taware [Supra]. Naturally, therefore, action

of the concerned respondents taking the petitioners in

custody on their failure to furnish bond is not in

accordance with law. It is not disputed by respondent

( 21 ) crwp1157.09

No.1 that the chapter case was registered against the

petitioners. So also, respondent No.3 Police Inspector

of City Police Station, Shrirampur has not disputed that

on complaint received from the Superintendent of Police,

Ahmednagar, chapter case was registered under section 107

CrPC against the petitioners and after enquiry in the

chapter case, the petitioners were produced before the

Taluka Executive Magistrate on 26.07.2009 and after

arrest of all the petitioners, they were medically

examined. Said respondent does not dispute that after

arrest on 25.06.2009, the petitioners were produced on

next day. Thus it is clear that after the petitioners

were arrested on 25.07.2009, they were in custody for

whole night till 26.07.2009 as on subsequent day, they

were produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate.

Thus, it is clear that they were in custody for whole

night. Therefore, it can be said that without giving

show cause notice as required by law to the petitioners,

to show cause, before directing them to furnish bond and

on their failure, they were detained for whole night on

( 22 ) crwp1157.09

25.07.2009.

12. Now it is to be seen whether on account of above

detention of the petitioners, they are entitled to

compensation as claimed by them. As held in the case of

Pravin Vijaykumar Taware [Supra],the guidelines were issued

by this Court, but it appears that said guidelines were

not observed. In the said case also proper procedure was

not followed while directing petitioners to give bond,

but no compensation was granted for the reasons given in

para 9 of the said decision referred supra. Considering

the guidelines in paragraph No.9 of said decision, we

hold that the petitioner Nos.1to3, who are major, are not

entitled to compensation and considering the fact that

petitioner No.4 was minor and she was detained by the

respondent Nos.3 and 4, it would be just to award

compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)

to her.

13. As regards prayer "C" to punish respondents, the

( 23 ) crwp1157.09

said aspect cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The

respondent No.2 - the Superintendent of Police to make

necessary enquiry against police personnel, who prepared

report to take action against petitioners and to fix the

responsibility, from whom amount of compensation as above

can be recovered by the State. Hence, following order is

passed.

14. The petition is allowed. The respondent State

is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand) to the petitioners and particularly

in favour of petitioner No.4 Nisha d/o. Hemu Ghodke, who

was minor at the relevant time. The amount is to be

deposited within 45 days from the date of this order. If

the amount is not deposited, the amount shall carry

interest at the rate of 8% per annum. There will be

liberty to recover this amount from the police officer

who prepared report of chapter case and who was

responsible for taking such action against the minor.

Rule is made absolute in those terms.

( 24 ) crwp1157.09

15. In view of disposal of the writ petition,

connected Criminal Application does not survive and same

stands disposed of accordingly.

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [T.V.NALAWADE,J.]

snk/2017/SEP17/crwp1157.09