LATA BHARAM BHOSALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. The orders impugned in all these applications have been passed in different revision applications, but all such revision applications were arising out of the order issuing process as passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon in R.C.C. No. 161/2009.

(2.) THE said case arose on a complaint filed by the present applicant against 18 persons, who all, are before me as respondents in the present proceedings. The applicant alleged that the respondents, who are all Police Officers, had committed offences punishable under Section 323, 324 325, 326, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of the avernments made in the complaint lodged by the applicant before the Magistrate was to the effect that on 02.08.2009, the respondents, without any reason, apprehended the applicant's son Changdeo Bhosale, assaulted him, put in him a Car and took him away to Kopargaon Police Station. Even after having brought to the Police Station, the son of the applicant was assaulted by some of the respondents. Son of the applicant Changdeo sustained serious injuries as a result of the assault and illtreatment. It is thereafter that Changdeo was shown as arrested in some case and was produced before the Magistrate on the next day i.e. on 03.08.2009. Changdeo made a complaint before the Magistrate to the effect that he was illtreated and assaulted by the Police. The Magistrate thereafter got him medically examined. On the complaint lodged by the applicant, the Magistrate, after considering the material before him, came to the conclusion that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against all the accused persons i.e. the respondents herein. He, therefore, directed process to be against them, requiring them to appear and answer to the charge of the aforesaid offences. The respondents, by filing three separate revision applications approached the Court of Sessions, challenging the order of issuance of process. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the said three revision applications, by separate but identical orders, allowed the revision applications and quashed the order issuing process passed by the Magistrate on 12.08.2009. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Court by invoking the inherent jurisdiction and powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P.B. Shirsath, learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Mr.P.N. Muley, learned A.P.P. for State. Nobody appears for other respondents, who are duly served with notices.