0

Complaint Seeking An Action Under Sub-Section (3) Of Section 156 Of Cr.P.C., The Learned Magistrate Cannot Act Mechanically: High Court of Bombay

Title : Satish Panchariya v The State of Maharashtra

Citation : WP-1009-2012

Decided On: 4th November, 2023.

Coram: Justice A. S. Gadkari And Justice Shyam C. Chandak.

Introduction:

The Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code [for short “Cr.P.C.”] for quashing of M.E.C.R. No. 2 of 2012, registered with Malad Police Station, Mumbai, in furtherance of Order dated 9th January, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai in C.C. No.04/SW/2012.

Facts:

The learned Magistrate by its impugned Order dated 9th January, 2012, while directing the Police to conduct investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., has himself admitted that without applying judicious mind to the case, he has passed the said Order by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrinivas Gundluri and Ors v/s. SEPCO Electric Power Constructions Corporation & Ors. It is the settled position of law and as has been enunciated by this Court in the case of Sayed Anwar Ahmed & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 3972, while dealing with the complaint seeking an action under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate cannot act mechanically. He is required to apply his mind to the contents of the complaint and the documents produced along with the complaint. That, an Order passed on the said complaint must record reasons in brief which should indicate application of mind by the Magistrate. However, it is not necessary to record detailed reasons.

There is another facet to the present Petition. In the complaint the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have represented themselves to be the authorized representatives of the Respondent No.2, Company for filing the said complaint and persuading the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned Order dated 9th January, 2012. The Authorised Representative/Director of Respondent No.2, Company, namely Retired Wing Commander Ajai Sharma has filed an Affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.2 dated 3rd April, 2012, duly affirmed before the Assistant Registrar of this Court.

he Respondent No.2 has not filed any complaint against any person and has also not authorised any person to file any complaint. That, the complaint bearing C.C. No. 04/SW/2012 filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, is without the knowledge of the Company and the Board of Respondent No.2 never passed any resolution to file any complaint or authorized Respondent No.3 to file any such complaint. That, the said complaint is filed without any authorization and without knowledge, consent or assent of the Board of Directors.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The court held that a priori that, it is apparent that the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, has filed the said complaint without having any lawful authority. It is clearly a sheer sheer abuse of process of law adopted by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the name of Respondent No.2 and as continuation of the said proceedings, would cause undue harassment and agony to the Petitioners for no illegal act committed by them.

The Court also did  not appreciate the mode and manner in which the impugned Order dated 9th January, 2012 is mechanically passed by the learned Magistrate, which is in utter disregard to the settled principles of law. Hence the order dated 9th January 2012 is quashed and set aside by the Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By : Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

ED Summons to District Collectors A ‘Fishing Expedition’ Without Showing Existence Of Proceeds Of Crime: Madras High Court.

ED Summons to District Collectors A ‘Fishing Expedition’ Without Showing Existence Of Proceeds Of Crime: Madras High Court.

Title : State of Tamil Nadu v Enforcement Directorate

Case No. : W.P.Nos.33459 to 33468 of 2023

Decided on : 30.11.2023.

CORAM : HONBLE JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J

Introduction

All the above writ petitions are filed by the State Government along with the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department and the District Collectors concerned. Writ Petition Nos.33459, 33460, 33461, 33462 & 33467 of 2023 are filed by the State Government and two others to quash the respective impugned summon issued to the District Collector of Vellore District, Trichy District, Karur District, Thanjavur District and Ariyalur District, requiring the appearance of the respective District Collectors to give evidence and produce records as indicated in the annexure, in connection with the investigation/proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 .

Fact of the Case

The respondent, namely, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement has filed an objection affidavit. The learned Additional Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection stating that the writ petitions are not maintainable by the State Government, as the State is not an aggrieved person to challenge the process of investigation. The learned Additional Solicitor General also relied upon a few complaints registered in different parts of the State. Referring to the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that as per the First Information Report mentioned in the ECIR, prima facie, it is observed that the activities of illegal mining are happening in the State of Tamil Nadu in collusion with officials and local mafia, hand in glove.

Case Analysis and Judgment

Court sincerely appreciates the way in which the respondent had responded to these writ petitions within a short time. A detailed affidavit of objection is filed by the respondent raising several issues. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners requested time to file reply in response to the objection in the form of affidavit. The learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that they may be permitted to file a detailed counter affidavit.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

 

0

Law Must Be Potent Enough to Operate Against People in Power, Having Higher Connections: Madras High Court .

Law Must Be Potent Enough to Operate Against People in Power, Having Higher Connections: Madras High Court .

Title : Mangalam v. The State Government and Others, WP (MD) 21450/2021

Case No. : W.P.(MD)No.21450 of 2021

Decided on :30.11.2023

CORAM :HONBLE JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

Introduction

This writ petition is filed to take action against the ninth respondent with the allegation that the ninth respondent without any valid permission, is illegally quarrying the lands belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.517/16A1, A2, A3, 603/4 and 604/2 measuring an extent of 12 acres.

Fact of the Case

It is submitted that with respect to para 2 of the Affidavit, one Thiru. Raja, the 9th Respondent herein was granted a lease for quarrying gravel in S.F.No. 617/1B and 617/2 of Punjai Sankenthi village of Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District for an extent of 1.81.5 hectares vide Proceedings of the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli in Rc.No.30/2013/Mines dated 27.06.2015 for a period of 3 years for a quantum of 35,108 cbm of Gravel. The lease was executed on 04.09.2015 and the lease is valid up to 03.09.2018. Thiru. Raja obtained Environmental Clearance from SEIAA-TN vide letter dated 01.04.2015 for a production quantity of 35,108 cbm of Gravel for a period of three years from the date of executing lease deed.

Case Analysis and Judgment

This Court is forced to make the above observations with a fond hope that the District Collector, Trichy District will immediately initiate action for the illegal quarrying done by the 9th respondent. Similarly, the District Crime Branch Unit-II, Trichy shall immediately register the FIR and proceed further with the investigation. The progress made shall be informed to this Court during the next date of hearing.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

0

Right To Protest Peacefully Significant Feature of A Democratic Country’: Madras High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Teachers.

Right To Protest Peacefully Significant Feature of A Democratic Country’: Madras High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Teachers.

Title : J.Jayaraj v. The Chief Educational Officer

Case No. : W.P.(MD)Nos.13409 to 13415 of 2022

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Decided on : 17.11.2023

Introduction

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to impugned proceedings order in Na.Ka.No. 2469/A3/2022 dated 06.06.2022 of the second respondent herein and quash the same.

Fact of the Case

The petitioners are Secondary Grade Teachers working in various Panchayat Primary Union and Middle Schools in various Unions of Karur District. All of them are members of the Tamil Nadu Primary School Teachers Federation bearing Registration No.60/2009. One Thiru.J.Jeyaraj/petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13409 of 2022 is the District Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Primary School Teachers Federation (herein after referred to as ‘Teachers Federation’). The object of formation of the said Teachers Federation is to work for the welfare of the Teachers and to ventilate the grievance of the Teachers working across the State by maintaining the cordial relationship between the Education Authorities, State and Teachers.

Case Analysis and Judgment

In the instant case, a group of 70 Teachers who are members of the Teacher’s Federation having properly represented to the respondents who are theOfficers of the Educational Department, Karur District bringing to their notice the illegal/irregular suspension of one of the member Thiru.

Suspended the petitioners from the date of agitation on 11.04.2022 and reinstated the petitioners back to service on the intervention of said Teachers Federation on 06.06.2022, the second respondent ought not to have visited the petitioners with the impugned charge memos dated 06.06.2022 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The reason is simple that the petitioners who have ventilated their grievances by organizing an agitation lawfully as against the respondents should not be punished by the issuance of impugned charge memos and allegations set forth by the impugned charge memos has emanated from lapse of application of mind of the respondents and not covered by the various guidelines framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu as discussed supra.

https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/j-jayaraj-v-chief-educational-officer-506496-506653.pdf

 

0

Madras High Court Asks Centre to Reconsider Enhancing Retirement Age Of Coast Guard Staff To 60 Years For All Ranks.

Madras High Court Asks Centre to Reconsider Enhancing Retirement Age Of Coast Guard Staff To 60 Years For All Ranks.

Title : Lakshmichandra Harishchandra Sharma v. Union of India

Case No. : W.P.No.415 of 2021

Decided on : 23.11.2023.

CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Introduction

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare Rule 20(1) of the Coast Guard (General) Rule 1986, relevant SRO 76 dated 19 April 1999 and the impugned decision of the 1 st respondent in No.14(14)2020-D(CG) communicated to the 2 nd respondent dated 21.07.2020 fixing the retirement age as 57 for Commandant as null and void and non est in law and consequently direct the respondents to fix the retirement age of the petitioner as 60 years at par with Deputy Inspector General of Indian Coast Guard instead of 57 years with all consequential service and other attendant benefits.

Fact of the Case

These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who were members of the Coast Guard with two limbs of prayers. Firstly, they challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 20(1) of Indian Coast Guard Rules, 1986. Secondly, they challenge the order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Defense, dated 21.07.2020, refusing to enhance the age of retirement of the members of the Coast Guard up to the level of commandant also to be 60 years from 57 years.

Case Analysis and Judgment

In the result we dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions:

  • The impugned order of the first respondent bearing reference No.14 (14/2020 – DCG), dated 21.07.2020 shall stand set aside and the matter shall be reconsidered by the first respondent in view of the reasonings contained supra in the Judgment;
  • It would also be open for the petitioners to make such representation in detail and bringing forth such material before the first respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and thereafter, the first respondent shall reconsider the issue in accordance with law, within a period of four months therefrom;
  • No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/lakshmichandra-harishchandra-sharma-v-union-of-india-506797.pdf

1 2 3 4 5 6 18