SHRAVAN BABURAO DINKAR Vs. N B HIRVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitions raise similar challenge and can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order. Petitioners in both the petitions have filed complaints in different Police Stations. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 301 of 1996 filed complaint with the Senior Inspector of Police, Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar against the respondent No. 3 for the alleged offences under section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act. The case was registered vide C. R. No. II 69 of 1995. As far as this complaint is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ulhasnagar has passed an order granting B Summary. Petitioner, in the said petition, has impugned the said order in Criminal Writ Petition No. 301 of 1996.

(2.) AS far as the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 302 of 1996 is concerned, he filed a complaint at the Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan alleging commission of an offence against employees of the Kalyan Municipal Corporation under sections 380, 425 and 488 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan. C Summary is issued. The said order is impugned in Criminal Writ Petition No. 302 of 1996.

(3.) BOTH the petitions have challenged the vires of section 96 (1) (iii) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 under which the aforesaid orders are sought to be justified. We , however, find that it is not necessary, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to examine the challenge to the vires as, in our view, the petitions are liable to succeed on merits without going into the question of vires. Even if the provisions of section 96 of the Bombay Police Act are taken into account, the same, in our view, do not clothe the Commissioner of Police with the power to grant summaries as has been sought to be done in respect of the complaints filed by the present petitioners.