NATHA VISHWANATH GHULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates of all the four petitioners. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service for the respondent State in all these petitions whereas advocate Mr. N.B. Narwade waives service for the respondent complainant. On the request of both the sides, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners are the accused nos. 10, 7, 4 and 9 from the complaint bearing Criminal Case No.572/2008 filed by the respondent complainant in the Court of Magistrate at Ahmednagar. In sum and substance the allegations are to the effect that the son of the respondent complainant went missing in the evening of 30.06.2001. He went to the Police Station concerned and attempted to lodged a missing report but he was kept waiting. His complaint was destroyed. On their own the police machinery registered a missing complaint on next day. All the while he was suspecting about his son having been murdered. The dead body was found near a railway track in the next morning. In spite of existence of number of circumstances pointing to the fact that it was a murder the police machinery had acted hand in gloves with the main culprits and at every moment made attempt to screen the offenders and mala fide did not discharge their duties either as was expected of them or in utter disregard to the directions of the superior. Giving details he filed the complaint for various offences against the petitioners and the other police officers, covered by Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code like 166, 167, 201, 218, 211 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 145 of the Mumbai Police Act.

(3.) The learned Magistrate directed an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After receipt of a positive report, by the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 the learned Magistrate directed the process to be issued against the petitioners and few other accused but refused to issue process against some of the accused. The petitioners preferred separate revisions challenging the order of issuance of process before the Sessions Court. By the impugned separate orders, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revisions. Hence these petitions.