Bombay High Court: The instant application was made under the provisions of Section 4821 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the quashing of First Information Report (‘FIR’) registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3542, 354-B3, 5044, 5065 and 5096 of the Penal Code, 1860. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ., presided, wherein the FIR revealed that in addition to the informant, who was a victim of the afore-mentioned offences, her daughter was also a victim of the same offences. The Court noted that the accused had allegedly abused the informant and her daughter in filthy language, and tried to assault the daughter, tearing her dress and attempting to undress her.
The Court further noted that a chargesheet had been filed by the Police Head Constable (‘PHC’) before a Judicial Magistrate First Class (‘JMFC’), that revealed the seizure of clothes panchanama of the daughter’s dress, corroborating the allegations against the accused, was unincluded in the chargesheet. Upon being questioned by the Court regarding the lapse in investigation, the PHC answered that since the daughter did not bring a change of clothes at the time of the FIR and was an absconder accused in another crime, the panchanama was not effectuated.
The Court also noted that the victims’ version was duly corroborated by an eyewitness to the alleged crime. The Court further queried from the PHC regarding his authorisation to investigate a crime against a woman, he submitted that the higher authorities through a Station Diary entry, had directed him to conduct the investigation. The Court directed the PHC to present the Case Diary entry of the instant crime, and the Station Diary concerned to support his contention, that was not presented while stating that it was not necessary according to him.
The Court was confounded, and its conscience shaken by hearing the evasive and false replies of the PHC; his demeanour clearly indicated his interest in protecting the accused than the victim of the sexual assault.
The Court stated that the State often claims serious and prompt investigation of offences against women, however, such investigations are being frustrated by the law enforcers like the PHC in the instant case.
Therefore, given the seriousness of the matter, the Court opined that the facts related to the lapse in investigation be brought to the notice of highest executive in the hierarchy of the Police Department, i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary (‘ACS’), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, and accordingly directed the ACS to file a detailed reply to the petition, and also requested the ACS to adopt appropriate strict remedial measures. Lastly, further proceedings related to the matter pending before the JMFC were stayed till the returnable date of the reply.
[Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Lagad v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2666, decided on 12-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: Ghansham Jadhav, Advocate
For the respondents: Ashish I. Satpute, APP
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 528 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’)
2. Corresponding Section 74 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
5. Section 351(2) and (3) of BNS
