SANTOSH DAUNDKAR V KSHITIJ THAKUR

JUDGEMENTS

1)     IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITIAN MAGISTRATE 62nd COURT, BHOIWADA, MUMBAI – CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO – 6200056/SW/13.

NAME OF PARTIES - SANTOSH DAUNDKAR -------- (COMPLAINANT)

V/s

                                         KSHITIJ THAKUR ----------------- (ACCUSED)

 

2)     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION – CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO 648 OF 2014.

NAME OF PARTIES - KSHITIJ HITENDRA THAKUR -------- (APPLICANT)

V/s

                                         SANTOSH DAUNDKAR ----------------- (RESPONDENT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I)                 FACTS

1)     On  18th March 2013 , Mr PSI Sachin Suryawanshi was posted near the exit of Bandra Worli Sea-link in order to stop motorists who were over speeding. while he was on duty, he saw one vehicle over-speeding and he stopped it with great difficulty. That  vehicle belonged to the alleged respondent Mr Kshitij Thakur who is a famous MLA of Vasai.

2)     As the vehicle was stopped, the MLA started hurling dirty abuses to Mr Sachin Suryawanshi.

3)     The incident was recorded by a police officer nearby, who was a witness to that offence, and the video was posted by him on the social media website, YouTube.

4)     On 19th March 2013, PSI Suryawanshi along with his senior P.I. Kore was called by Shri Davkhare to meet him in his cabin at the legislative assembly. It is alleged that  after the meet, Mr Suryawanshi and Sub-inspector Kore were heading towards  the canteen, and at that time the accused along with 10-15 people came towards the appellant and they assaulted him.

5)     On 4th April 2013, A complaint was filed in Worli Police Station with a request to file an F.I.R under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6)     It is also alleged that the inspector of the Worli Police Station refrained from registering an F.I.R under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the facts of the case revealed commission of a cognizable offence. It seems that the person is a powerful politician and the police did not want to antagonise him for apparent reasons.

7)     The complaint was filed by one Shree Santosh Daundkar in which he gave a statutory notice to Deputy Commissioner of Police and others to file an F.I.R. as per the provision of section 154(3) of Code of criminal Procedure Code 1973, whereby filing the complaint in Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 62nd Court at Bhoiwada, Mumbai, against the present applicant for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

8)     Accordingly, the case was registered at Worli Police Station against the present applicant for the offences punishable under sections 353, 341, 323, 143, 149, 506(2),  34, 332 and 109 I.P.C., later on the investigation was transferred to Crime Branch of the Mumbai Police CR No- 40 of 2013.

9)     Charge sheet in the above case is filled with Ld Metropolitian Magistrate 37th Court at Esplande Mumbai.

10)After the judgement of the Ld Metropolitan Magistrate Shri PSI Suryawanshi filed a writ petition in High Court, in order to challenge the decision given by the Metropolitian Magistrate Court.

 

I)                 ISSUE

1)     Whether the cognizance of the offence took place?

2)     Whether Mr Kshitij Thakur is liable for the offence?

3)     Whether the Worli Police officials fail to comply with their duties to file F.I.R in time?

II)              CONTENTION

1)     It was submitted by the Ld.Metropolitian Magistrate Court, that when the offence took place, the recording of the offence was done by one of the police inspector who  was a witness to the offence, and the video was posted on the social media website namely YouTube. There are official papers to suggest that the offence took place under provision of section 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also under section 110 of the Bombay Police Act, 1851.

2)     The offence is cognisable under sections 294 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in which the MLA was found to have committed an offence, whereby he uttered abusive words.

3)     The Ld Magistrate court held that the Worli Police Station failed to file an F.I.R on time and as a result, the police officials are liable for the offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.

4)     The contention of the Ld Magistrate Court was that, the cognisable offence was committed by Mr Kshitij Thakur under sections 294 and 506 of  the Indian Penal Code for criminal intimidation and the Police officials were responsible under section 110 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

5)     The police officials of the Worli Police Station were held liable for not filing the F.I.R under the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1971.

 

 

III)           REASONING OF THE COURT

1)     The contention of the Ld Magistrate Court was that, the offence is committed and it is triable under the laws of  the land, and the complainant has the locus standii to file the complaint.  

2)     The court also observed that the accused person in the case was very powerful, notwithstanding the cognisable offence is occurred, yet the matter was not reported by the police.

3)      The Ld Magistrate also gave a reasoning that there were other person who were a witness to the offence and their statement was also necessary to be submitted as complete evidence before the court.

4)     One of the police officer had recorded the incident, when the MLA was hurling abuses to PSI Suryawanshi.

5)     The Ld Magistrate Court gave the following reasons for investigation-

a)     There are accused other persons who are also party to the crime, which is to be found out.

b)     There are other police officers who were witness to the offence, for which their statement are also necessary.

c)      There is a video recording available on the internet, in which there is one person who is speaking from behind, that name of the person is required to be identified.

 

 

IV)           JUDGEMENT

1)     The Ld Magistrate Court gave an extra time of 48 hours to file the F.I.R, for the investigation of offense and two days to hold preliminary inquiry and investigation.

2)     The Court held the respondent were liable under section 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

3)     The inspector of Worli Police Station is liable for not filing the F.I.R within the prescribed time.

4)     The accused Mr Kshitij Thakur is liable for the cognisable offence under sections 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5)     The High Court dismissed the application on the grounds of locus standii, stating that, the victim of the case should have filed the case.

6)     The High Court held that the case issued against Mr Kshitij Thakur in 62nd Metropolitian  Magistrate shall be quashed.

7)     The High Court also dismissed the case, on the ground that complainant cannot file the case, since he was not an eye-witness to the case.

V)               REASONING GIVEN BY THE JUDGE

1)     The Judge of the Ld Magistrate gave an extra time of 48 hours for the police officials of the Worli Police Station to file the F.I.R, in which the judge stated that, the law does not prohibit the filing of an F.I. R, but to conduct preliminary enquiry in rare and exceptional cases. There is an entry to be made in the Daily diary/station diary/Roznamachar for need to adopt course of action.

2)     The judge also stated that two days time should be given to hold preliminary inquiry.

3)     The judge held that, under section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the aggrieved person can send in writing the complaint to the Superintendent of police to file an F.I.R and to conduct investigation of the case, in which the superintendent of police shall investigate the case himself or direct a subordinate junior to investigate the case.

4)     The judge of the Ho’ble High Court held that the allegations made in the private complaint is covered in Marine Drive Police Station and the investigation is being completed and the charge sheet is filed.

5)     The Judge of the Ho’ble High Court quashed the case by stating that the complainant has filed the case, who is not eye- witness to the case.

 

 

 

Abha Singh, 4/27/2020 12:00:00 AM


Related Case Studies