Raju @ Rajkumar Shamandas Aswani vs State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 11244 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:33408-DB

                sa_mandawgad                                            5criwp3325-23.doc



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO.3325 OF 2023

                Mr.Raju @ Rajkumar Shamandas Aswani,
                Age - 55 years, Occ - Business
                Residing at Sham Bhavan, Plot No.140,
                Opp. Cosmos Bank, Pimpri, Pune- 017                ... Petitioner.
                       V/s.
                1.     State of Maharashtra
                       Through Secretary,
                       Government of Maharashtra,
                       Mantralaya Mumbai

                2.     National Commission for Scheduled Castes,
                       A Constitutional body set up under
                       Article 338 of the Constitution of India,
                       5th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
                       Khan Market, New Delhi 11003

                3.     The Chairman,
                       National Commission for Scheduled Castes,
                       Kendriya Sadan A wing, 1st floor,
                       Opp. Akurdi Railway Station,
                       Nigdi Pradhikaran, State Office,
                       Pune, Maharashtra.

                4.     The Commissioner of Police,
                       Pimpri Chinchwad, Mumbai Road,
                       Anand Nagar, Chinchwad, District,
                       Pune, Maharashtra.

                5.     The Senior Inspector of Police,
                       Pimpri Police Station.



                                                                                     1/ 8
 sa_mandawgad                                                  5criwp3325-23.doc



6.       Anil Parcha,
         Age : 32 years, Occupation: Service
         Residing at Flat No. A-204, Second Floor,
         Waghere Park, Near Kirti Hospital,
         Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra 411017                 ... Respondents.

Ms. Minal Chandnani, Mr.Zoheb Merchant i/by Jaiwant S.Chandnani &
Associates for Petitioner.
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Harshad Inamdar for Respondent No.6.

                            CORAM : A.S. GADKARI &
                                      SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

Reserved on : 20th October, 2023.

Pronounced on : 2nd November, 2023.

JUDGMENT : (Per A.S.Gadkari, J.):

1) Heard Ms. Minal Chandnani, learned counsel for Petitioner, Ms.

Anamika Malhotra, learned APP for Respondent-State and Mr. Harshad

Inamdar, learned counsel for Respondent No.6.

2) The Petition was heard at considerable length on two dates.

On the earlier date of hearing, the counsel appearing for the Petitioner

was heard at length and he sought time to take instructions and as

such, the matter was adjourned. On the adjourned date, different

counsel appeared and she was also heard at length.

3) By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned

Communications/Notices dated 9th July, 2021 and 27th March, 2023 and

2/ 8 sa_mandawgad 5criwp3325-23.doc

stay of the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2-National

Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi.

4) Ms. Chandani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

submits that, the Petitioner had registered CR No.1093 of 2021 dated

22nd October, 2019 with the Pimpri Police Station, against the Accused,

which included the Respondent No.6 herein-Mr. Anil Parcha. She would

submit that, Respondent No.6 belongs to a rival political party and

wanted to kill the Petitioner due to political rivalry. That, CR No.1091 of

2021, is a false CR registered against the Petitioner and his party

workers on 21st October, 2019 with the same police station, in which the

charge-sheet has been filed. According to her, the Petitioner's family is

being targeted due to political rivalry and the investigation records in

the CR No.1091 of 2021 clearly proves that the evidence has been

tampered. That, in CR No.1091 of 2021, the Respondent No.6 has given

a supplementary statement falsely implicating the Petitioner and other

co-accused. That, the Respondent No.6 with the intention to protect

himself against any liability for the criminal acts committed by him,

addressed a Complaint to the Respondent No.2-Commission. She points

out the complaint dated 15th June, 2021 and the second complaint

dated 20th March, 2023 addressed by the Respondent No.6 to the

Chairman of National Commission for Scheduled Castes.

                                                                         3/ 8
 sa_mandawgad                                               5criwp3325-23.doc



4.1)      She would submit that, the Respondent No.2-Commission

without satisfying itself about the complaint made by the Respondent

No.6 has issued the impugned Notices dated 9th July, 2021 and 27th

March, 2023 annexed at page Nos.25 and 25-F of the Petition. That, the

Respondent No.2-Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction as the

crimes are subjudice. She would submit that, there is no evidence which

would demonstrate that, the assault or the false case was done only due

to the Respondent No.6 belonging to Scheduled Caste.

5) We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

6) As noted earlier, by the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks

quashing of the Communications/Notices dated 9th July, 2021 and 27th

March, 2023 issued by the Respondent No.2-Commission. The fallacy in

the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is in construing

the impugned Communications as Orders passed by the National

Commission for Scheduled Castes. In the prayer clause also, the

communications are being referred to as 'order'.

7) We have perused the communications dated 9 th July, 2021 and

27th March, 2023. The said communications have been addressed by the

Respondent No.2-Commission to the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri

Chinchwad, District Pune, Maharashtra and the District Collector,

District Pune, Maharashtra, calling upon the noticee to submit action

4/ 8 sa_mandawgad 5criwp3325-23.doc

taken report in the format given in the said communications. The

format indicates that, only the details of the incident are sought at this

stage by the Respondent No.2-Commission.

8) The National Commission for Scheduled Castes is a

constitutional body which is created under Article 338 of the

Constitution of India. The powers and the functions of the National

Commission for Scheduled Castes are set out in Clause (5) of Article

338 of the Constitution. Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (5) of Article 338,

provides for an inquiry into specific complaints with respect to the

deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes . It is

evident from the communications which are impugned in the present

Petition that, the Commission upon receipt of the complaint from the

Respondent No.6 has sought certain information from the concerned

Authorities i.e. the Commissioner of Police and the District Collector.

9) The communications have not been addressed to the

Petitioner and no summons has been issued to him. This is a

preliminary stage where upon receipt of the complaint from Respondent

No.6, the Respondent No.2-Commission has merely sought the

information about the incident in-question. At this premature stage, the

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of an

injunction to restrain and/or to preempt the Respondent No.2-

5/ 8 sa_mandawgad 5criwp3325-23.doc

Commission from proceeding any further. The inquiry which the

Respondent No.2-Commission has the jurisdiction in view of the Sub-

Clause (2) of Clause 5 of Article 338 of the Constitution is at the

nascent stage. Only information is being sought from the concerned

authorities. It remains to be seen whether Respondent No.2-

Commission takes any further steps after having received the

information.

10) According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Rules

of the procedure of the Commission do not permit an action to be taken

on matters which are subjudice. At this stage, there is no

recommendation of the Respondent No.2-Commission in respect of the

crimes which have been being lodged against Respondent No.6. What

the Petitioner seeks is to preempt the Respondent No.2-Commission

from taking any action upon the complaint of the Respondent No.6,

which in our opinion is not permissible.

11) We find that there is no recommendation or any direction

passed by the Respondent No.2-Commission on the complaint received

from the Respondent No.6. The Petition is therefore, filed prematurely.

It cannot be stated that, the Respondent No.2-Commission does not

have the jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint which has been

lodged by the Respondent No.6, as Article 338 of the Constitution of

6/ 8 sa_mandawgad 5criwp3325-23.doc

India empowers the Respondent No.2-Commission to inquire into

specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards

of the Scheduled Castes.

12) In our opinion, the cause of action if any, will accrue to the

Petitioner only in event of any orders/recommendation being passed by

the Respondent No.2-Commission, which would be in excess of the

jurisdiction or and/or in violation of the Rules of the procedure of the

Commission. If the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner is

accepted, it would amount to prohibiting the Respondent No.2-

Commission from even seeking information about any incident pursuant

to complaint being received by it.

13) Having regard to the above, in our opinion, the Petition is

thoroughly misconceived being premature and is liable to be dismissed.

Before parting, we may note that, the pleadings in the present Petition

leaves much to be desired. Right from terming the communications as

'orders' to the pleadings referring to the Petitioner at some places as

Appellant, to the discrepancy in the pleadings and the documents

annexed to the Petition has presented this Court with a lot of difficulty

in adjudicating the Petition. Be that as it may, we would only like to add

that, the pleadings and the documents which are annexed to the

Petition play an important role in assisting the Court to adjudicate the

7/ 8 sa_mandawgad 5criwp3325-23.doc

subject matter and it is expected that, due care would be taken by the

draftsmen to ensure that there is no discrepancy between the pleadings

and documents and that the documents are referred to correctly and

pleadings are not drafted in a casual manner. We leave it at that.

14) In view of the discussion above, in our opinion, this is not a

stage at which the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2-

Commission can be thwarted. Respondent No.2-Commission has not

issued any direction or recommendation which would require to be

considered by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. In our opinion, no cause of action having been

accrued, Petition is liable to be dismissed.

                             15)       Petition is accordingly dismissed.



                                (SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)                       (A.S. GADKARI, J.)




                                                                                                      8/ 8
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/11/2023 19:03:31