DILRANJAN BHATT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable with the consent of the parties and heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, on instructions, states that the petitioner does not press the relief in terms of prayer clause (a) and restricts the relief in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads as under :

(3.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the respondent -State at length. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon exposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, 1985 2 SCC 537 submits that the informant is entitled to receive copy of 'C' summary report so as to prefer protest petition. He also submits that the lower Court has made prima facie observations in the impugned order that, in the present case the police have filed 'C' summary and no accusation has made against the complainant and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the copy of 'C' summary report, and accordingly notice was issued to the petitioner. He therefore submits that as the petitioner wish to prefer protest petition, 'C' summary report is necessary. He therefore submits that the purpose would be served if this Court issues directions in terms of prayer clause (b) of this petition.