Sonali J. Bhosale vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2034 Bom

Megha                                    60_pil(l)_26736_2022.doc



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

     PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (LODGING) NO.26736 OF 2022

Mrs. Sonali J. Bhosale                                     ...Petitioner
                   Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.               ...Respondents
                                     ...
Mr. Jyotishwar Bhosale with Anirudh Rote, Padmashila Tadke i/b. M/s.
Expert Jurist for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Sonali J. Bhosale, Petitioner, present.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for Respondents -State.
Ms Rebecca Gonsalves for Respondent No.3.


                            CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                   SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED: MARCH 1, 2023.

P. C. :-

1. The Petitioner seeks directions against the Respondents to

evolve a special system /management to strictly adhere to the Supreme

Court of India guidelines laid down in the judgment dated 07/09/2016

in Youth Bar Association vs. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petitioner

(Criminal) No.68 of 2016 .

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

Respondents are not uploading all the signed and readable FIRs as per

the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Respondents are

Megha 60_pil(l)_26736_2022.doc

required to upload each and every FIR complete in all respects.

According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondents are

duty bound to comply the guidelines issued by the Apex Court.

3. The State has filed an affidavit through the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, CID, State of Maharashtra. The relevant

extracts of the affidavit read thus:

"3. I say and submit in whole of Maharashtra pursuant to the said judgment and in specific from 01-01-2017 all FIRs are regularly uploaded on CITIZEN PORTAL https://citizen.mahapolice.gov.in. I say that the uploading of the typed copy of the FIR is done within the time period stipulated in the said order passed by the Apex Court i.e. within 24 Hrs from the time of registration of FIR and in some cases where there is any connectivity issue within 48 to 72 hrs.

4. I say that immediately after the said decision of the Apex Court, the State of Maharashtra has appointed WIPRO to develop, manager and maintain the software titled as Crime and Criminal Network and Tracking System (CCTNS). I say that as soon as an FIR is registered and typed in any of the 1120 police stations within the State of Maharashtra and within the jurisdiction of the 2nd Respondent the

Megha 60_pil(l)_26736_2022.doc

SHO of the concerned police station is duty bound to forward typed copy of each and every FIR (soft copy) within shortest possible time to Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Rural Maharashtra/Asst. Commissioner of Police (ACP) Metropolitan Cities/Police Commissionerates. I say that the said office of SDPO/ACP is only authorized and duty bound to upload each and every FIR on the CITIZEN PORTAL which is regularly managed, maintained serviced and supervised by one of the world's best computer service providing company WIPRO. I categorically state that only SDPO/ACP or officers above the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police has access and authority to upload FIRs on the said portal. I say that no officer subordinate can access the portal for uploading purpose.

6. I say that in case the office of SDPO/ACP is of the opinion that on account of the fact that a particular FIR is of following nature Sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category or offences under POCSO Act and such other sensitive offences the concerned SDPO/ACP does not upload FIRs involving such sensitive crimes.

7. I say that though the Petitioner in prayer clause e on page 18 of the Petition specifically prays that in cases of sensitive offences as mentioned

Megha 60_pil(l)_26736_2022.doc

herein above Standard Template Note with the name of the accused and applicable section be made available online, the said request cannot be considered by the office of answering respondent as Hon'ble Apex Court has in its order passed in Youth Bar Association has after hearing all concerned and judiciously examining the merits and demerits of the matter given specific directions to all the Police Stations in the Country and office of answering respondent is not authorized/competent to deviate or modify any of the said directions on its own accord. Any modification/ deviation / commission / omission on part of the answering respondent will amount to directly / indirectly interference in administration of justice.

10. I categorically state that all FIRs uploaded on the portal to which every individual has free online access is complete in all aspects and no part or incomplete FIR is uploaded in whole of Maharashtra State. I say that only signature of the informant and that of the Station House officer SHO cannot be uploaded as in soft copy of the FIR/in the software, provision for uploading of digital signature is presently not available. I say that even the Apex Court in its judgment does not direct signed copy to be uploaded. I say that as per answering respondent making this facility available may not be feasible and

Megha 60_pil(l)_26736_2022.doc

advisable as this will consume lot of time of the informant and many a time the mental state of the informant is not appropriate to demand from him various documents mandatorily required for processing digital signature. I say that all details mentioned in the FIR save and except signature of informant and name of the investigating officer is not uploaded. I say that keeping the name of investigating officer undisclosed is in interest of the officer. I say that because of the same no prejudice is caused to the public at large. Even after integration of all the police stations with E-courts in the State all FIRs (soft copies) uploaded are without signature of the informant /investigating officer. I say that on verifying with the process followed in other states it is found by the office of the answering respondent that in other States in the country as well FIRs are uploaded without signature. Two such sample FIRs from State of Gujarat and U.T. New Delhi are annexed hereto as Exhibit "A" & "B" for kind perusal, consideration of the Hon'ble Court.

11. I say and submit that in whole of the State as on date of this affidavit there are 1120 police stations within the jurisdiction of 2nd Respondent. I say and submit that on average approximately 6 lac plus FIRs are registered annually in the State. I say that due to huge volume of data and in order to put

Megha 60_pil(l)_26736_2022.doc

in motion the system of uploading of each and every FIR, which required effective and efficient software, servers, data base, etc. it took some time and hence instead of 15-11-2016 the system was fully functional and in place w.e.f 01-01-2017. I say that prior to 01-01-2017 the software was functional but for trial only to identify and improve the same before full and final commissioning of the software.

12. I say and submit that in compliance with direction given in paragraph No.4.4.1 clause H of the order passed by the Apex Court, the office of answering Respondent has issued specific directions vide its circulars dated 09-11-2016 for formation of committee in each District for entertaining, hearing & deciding grievance of any of the aggrieved parties in respect on non availability of FIRs registered under sensitive offences as is mentioned herein above. Similar such directions are regularly issued from time to time and last such directions were issued on 07-04-2021."

4. Reading of the aforesaid affidavit makes it it clear that the

State Authorities are taking steps to implement the guidelines of the

Apex Court laid down in the case of Youth Bar Association (supra). It

has been assured that the complete FIRs are uploaded. Exception

Megha 60_pil(l)_26736_2022.doc

being of the offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act (POCSO) and other sensitive offences and the same would

be justified also. With regard to prayer clause (g) certainly unsigned

FIR may be a matter of concern for Respondent No.3. The party can

also have a certified copy of the FIR on record.

5. In the light of above, the grievance of the Petitioner to a

larger extent is met with. In the light of that the PIL is disposed of. No

costs.

                     (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)               (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




          Digitally signed
MEGHA by MEGHA S
      PARAB
S     Date:
PARAB 2023.03.04
      14:22:43 +0530