Bombay High Court
Abasaheb Anandrao Patil vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 9 August, 2024
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K. Chavan
NISHA Digitally signed by
2024:BHC-AS:33278-DB
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2024.08.20
CHITNIS 14:13:52 +0530
19-wpst.903.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.903 OF 2024
Abasaheb Anandrao Patil
Age-51 Yrs, Occu-Service,
Presently working as,
Police Inspector at Crime Branch,
Unit-1, Vashi, New Mumbai,
R/o-1606, Shri. Gopinath Sublime,
Parsik Nagar, Kalwa, Thane. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary
Home Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Director General of Police
For the State of Maharashtra,
Shamaprasad Mukharji Chowak,
Mumbai-01.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Raigad
Having his office at
Alibagh, Dist-Raigad.
4. Smt. Sarita Mahadev Shedge
Age-60 Yrs, Occu-Agri,
R/o-Chandhave Bk, Tal-Mahad,
Dist-Raigad. ...Respondents
Mr. Shekhar Ingawale i/b Mr. Anand S. Patil, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, A.P.P for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
N. S. Chitnis 1/8
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2024 06:29:16 :::
19-wpst.903.2024.doc
Mr. Rupesh Shinde, for the Respondent No.4.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 9th AUGUST 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent
of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned A.P.P waives
notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. Mr. Shinde,
waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.4.
3. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order
dated 6th July 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Member, Maharashtra State
Human Rights Commission in particular recommendations made in
clauses 'b' and 'c' as well as the order dated 26 th April 2023 passed by
the said Commission in Review Application No.5059 of 2022.
19-wpst.903.2024.doc
4. The principle grievance of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission
has passed the impugned order dated 6 th July 2022, on the basis of the
statements of several witnesses and doctor, without issuing notice to
the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, in clear breach of
the principles of natural justice. He submits that admittedly the
petitioner was not heard by the Maharashtra State Human Rights
Commission before passing the impugned order dated 6 th July 2022.
This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner has led to
serious miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further submits that it is only after the impugned order dated 6 th July
2022 was passed that the petitioner, learnt of the impugned order
dated 6th July 2022, by which the Maharashtra State Human Rights
Commission (i) directed the petitioner to pay compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant-Sarita Shedge and (ii) directed the
office of the DGP, Mumbai, to lodge a departmental enquiry against
the petitioner and others, for gross negligence. Mr. Ingawale further
submits that it was incumbent for the Maharashtra State Human
19-wpst.903.2024.doc
Rights Commission to issue summons as mandated under Section 16
of the Protection of Human Rights Act.
5. Learned APP fairly states that the petitioner ought to have
been heard before the impugned order dated 6 th July 2022 was passed.
She further fairly states that the Maharashtra State Human Rights
Commission has not complied with Section 16 of the Protection of
Human Rights Act.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 opposes the
petition. He submits that no interference was warranted in the
impugned orders.
7. Perused the petition. It appears that respondent No.4 -
Sarita Shedge (original complainant) had filed a complaint before the
Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission in 2017 expressing
suspicion vis-a-vis the death of her son and non-investigation of the
same by the police, despite her son having died under mysterious
circumstances. According to the complainant, the police registered a
19-wpst.903.2024.doc
case of 'Accidental Death' i.e. a case of 'Death by rash and negligent
driving by an unknown driver of the vehicle' and as such did not
investigate the case properly. The learned Member, Maharashtra State
Human Rights Commission vide the impugned order dated 6 th July
2022 considering the said complaint made the following
recommendations:-
"7 .... ....
a) Director General of Police, Mumbai to order registration
of offence u/s. 302 IPC against the culprit Shri Dilip
Kamble by deleting offences u/s. 304A, 279 IPC, under
crime no. 62/16, to Sec. 302, 201 IPC. Investigation
should be entrusted to a senior police officer of the rank of
Superintendent of Police;
b) Compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded to complainant
Smt. Sarita Mahadeo Shedge to be paid by the erring
police officer ACP Shri Aabasaheb Anandrao Patil, Anti
Corruption Division, Mumbai and retired PI Shri
Nandkishore Digambar Saste jointly and severally within
six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing
which amount to be recovered by the office of DGP,
Mumbai, with simple interest of 12% p/.a. from the date
of order till its full realization;
c) Office of DGP, Mumbai to consider launching of
departmental enquiry against the erring police officers
entrusted with investigation of the crime for gross
negligence in registering a proper crime against the culprit
and for having made incorrect submissions before the
19-wpst.903.2024.doc
High Court as observed by the Commission in its previous
orders supra above;
d) Office of Secretary attached with this Commission to
forward the copy of the order to the office of DGP,
Mumbai and ACS Home for information and necessary
action in accordance with the provisions of sec. 18(e) of
the Act of 1993 a/w Reg. 22 to 24 of the Maharashtra
State Human Rights (Procedure) Regulations, 2011."
(Emphasis supplied).
8. It appears that the petitioner learnt of the said order only
when notice was issued to the petitioner for complying with the same
i.e. Clauses - 'b' and 'c' of the order dated 6 th July 2022. Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner filed a Review Application before the
Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. The said Review
Application was dismissed by the learned Member, Maharashtra State
Human Rights Commission vide order dated 26th April 2023.
9. By the impugned order dated 6 th July 2022, compensation
was awarded to the complainant, which is to be paid by the petitioner.
As noted aforesaid, admittedly, the petitioner was not heard, much less
19-wpst.903.2024.doc
notice was issued to the petitioner in the said proceeding/complaint.
We find that principles of natural justice have not been complied with
and that the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission ought to
have issued notice to the petitioner, having regard to the nature of
allegations.
10. Considering the aforesaid, the petition is allowed to the
extent as stated hereinunder:-
ORDER
(i) Recommendations made in Clauses - 'b' and 'c' of the impugned
order dated 6th July 2022 passed by the Maharashtra State
Human Rights Commission, are quashed and set aside;
(ii) Consequently, the order dated 26th April 2023 passed by the
Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, in Review
Application No.5059 of 2022, is also quashed and set aside;
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Maharashtra State Human
Rights Commission, for fresh consideration, after hearing the
petitioner and other officers;
19-wpst.903.2024.doc
(iv) Before hearing the matter on merits, the Maharashtra State
Human Rights Commission is requested to give notice to the
petitioner and other officers for issuing directions as regards
grant of compensation and/or departmental enquiry to be
initiated against them;
(v) The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission after hearing
the parties, to decide afresh uninfluenced with the findings
recorded in the impugned order and the recommendations made
in clauses - 'b' and 'c'. The Maharashtra State Human Rights
Commission is further requested to return its findings afresh,
particularly in respect of clauses - 'b' and 'c'.
11. The Petition is allowed to the extent aforesaid and is
accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
12. We make it clear, that we have not gone into the merits of
the case, and as such, keep all contentions of all parties open.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
judgment.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
