Posted On by &filed under Bombay High Court, High Court.


Bombay High Court
Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: 1986 (1) BomCR 272
Author: A Tated
Bench: A Tated


JUDGMENT

A.D. Tated, J.

1. This Criminal writ petition under Article 227 Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Bombay, on 5th November, 1984 directing charge to be framed under section 506 (Part II) read with section 114 I.P.C. against the petitioner-accused No. 1.

2. Mahableshwar Govind Kalkgutkar, P.S.I. Bhandup Police-Station, filed first information report against the petitioner-accused No. 1 alleging that the accused No. 1. In the workers’ meeting at the gate of Manik Metal and Manik Engineering Company at Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Bhandup, Bombay, on 22nd September, 1981 at about 1 p.m. addressed the workers and during the addressed he said that P.S.I. Avhad should not try to teach the A B C to the workers, otherwise they would teach him a lesson with Lathis, on the basis of the said report. C.R. No. 443 of 1981 was registered at Bhandup Police Station and after necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 506 (Part II) read with section 114 I.P.C.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner accused No. 1 contends that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was wrong in framing the charge against the petitioners. According to him, the offence under section 506 I.P.C. being non-cognizable, the police could not cognizance of an investigate into the offence without obtaining necessary orders from the Metropolitan Magistrate. According to him, the investigation without obtaining the necessary order from the Metropolitan Magistrate the filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge against the petitioner are again bad in law and therefore, all the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 858/P of 1982 are required to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor is unable to show that how the police investigated into the defence without obtaining necessary order from the Metropolitan Magistrate, the offence being non-cognizable. The investigation into the non-cognizable offence by a Police-Officer without order of the Metropolitan Magistrate is contrary to the provisions of section 155(2) Cri. P.C. and therefore, the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charge are all vitiated and as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Even otherwise on the material on record, no case for framing charge under section 506 (Part II) I.P.C. is made out.

4. In the result, the petition is allowed, the proceedings are quashed and the rule is made absolute.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.185 seconds.