Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 November, 2017
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.11 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5661/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-05-2017
in CRLA No. 1015/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.67050/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.67052/2017-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.67047/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF
DATES)
Date : 20-11-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Y. Deshmukh, AOR
Mr. Shakti Pandey,Adv.
Mr. Shrikant R. Deshmukh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anil V. Anturkar,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar,Adv.
Dr. R.R. Deshpande,Adv.
Mr. Karunakar Mahalik,Adv.
For Mr. Abhay Anturkar & Associates
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Certain adverse remarks were recorded against Signature Not Verified respondent no. 2-Bhaskar Karbhari Gaidwad by the Principal Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2017.11.21 15:29:21 IST Reason: and Head of the Department of the College of Pharmacy where respondent no. 2 was employed. Respondent No. 2 2 sought sanction for his prosecution under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and for certain other connected offences. The said matter was dealt with by the petitioner and sanction was declined. This led to another complaint by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner under the said provisions. The quashing of the said complaint has been declined by the High Court.
The question which has arisen in the course of consideration of this matter is whether any unilateral allegation of mala fide can be ground to prosecute officers who dealt with the matter in official capacity and if such allegation is falsely made what is protection available against such abuse.
Needless to say that if the allegation is to be acted upon, the proceedings can result in arrest or prosecution of the person and have serious consequences on his right to liberty even on a false complaint which may not be intended by law meant for protection of a bona fide victim.
The question is whether this will be just and fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution of India or there can be procedural safeguards so that provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 are not abused for extraneous considerations..
Issue notice returnable on 10th January, 2018. 3 In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of further proceedings.
Issue notice to Attorney General of India also as the issue involves interpretation of a central statute.
Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel is requested to assist the Court as amicus. Mr. Sharan will be at liberty to have assistance of Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner will furnish two set of paper books to Mr. Amendra Sharan, learned senior counsel.
(MADHU BALA) (PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER