The Bombay High Court on Thursday expressed profound astonishment over an order issued by a Thane Sessions Court judge, which stayed the findings of a Magistrate Enquiry.
The enquiry had concluded that there was merit in the allegations made by the parents of the accused in the Badlapur Sexual Assault Case, asserting that their son was extrajudicially executed in a “fake encounter.”
A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale questioned the propriety of such an order, particularly given that the matter was already under the purview of their court.
Notably, the five police officers implicated in the alleged extrajudicial killing of the accused had petitioned the Thane Sessions Court, seeking a stay on the Magistrate’s findings, which had determined that the encounter appeared to be staged, as the use of force by the police on the relevant day was deemed “unjustified.”
Expressing shock over the February 21 ruling of the Sessions Court, Justice Mohite-Dere remarked, “We are shocked. How can the Sessions Judge pass such an order? Is he not aware that this court has already seized the matter and has been hearing it at regular intervals? Is this judicial propriety? How is such an order tenable, and, more fundamentally, how can the revision application itself be maintainable when the matter is pending before us?”
The bench further interrogated Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar on whether the State had opposed the police officers’ revision application before the Sessions Court. Venegavkar confirmed that opposition was raised, but the court appeared unconvinced by the response.
“Does this order not overreach the fact that this court is seized with the matter? When the case is sub judice, could the Sessions Court have entertained the petition at all? We do not see any substantial objection raised by the State against the maintainability of the petition itself. Has the judge overstepped his jurisdiction? Is this not an instance of judicial insubordination, reflecting a disregard for judicial propriety? We are shocked. Is the State going to challenge this order?” Justice Mohite-Dere queried.
The bench also questioned Venegavkar, in his capacity as both a State Prosecutor and an officer of the court, on whether he was similarly “appalled and shocked” by the stay order. Venegavkar responded, “We too are shocked, Milord.”
During the proceedings, the judges appointed Senior Advocate Manjula Rao as Amicus Curiae in the petition filed by the father of the accused, who alleged that his son had been unlawfully killed in a staged encounter.
The court observed that in a prior hearing, the father had expressed his unwillingness to pursue the case further, citing the prolonged delay in securing justice for his son.
Consequently, the bench appointed Rao to provide independent assistance to the court.
Addressing Rao, Justice Mohite-Dere stated, “Madam Rao, we seek your assistance in this matter. The Magistrate Enquiry has submitted its findings, and you will need to advise us on whether the State can register an FIR against the five police officers in light of this report. The State has argued that a Judicial Commission and the State CID are already investigating the matter. You must address whether the existence of these inquiries poses a legal impediment to filing an FIR.”
The court adjourned the proceedings until March 5, allowing Rao time to review the case documents and present her submissions.
The bench was adjudicating the plea filed by the father of the deceased, who, among other reliefs, sought a thorough investigation and the registration of an FIR against the police officials allegedly responsible for his son’s extrajudicial killing.
On September 25, 2024, the court had remarked on the improbability of the accused, described as not being a physically strong individual, being incapable of being subdued by the police officials accompanying him.
The court also noted that the officer who purportedly discharged his weapon at the accused could not claim ignorance regarding appropriate protocol, given his position as an Assistant Police Inspector.
On December 19, 2024, the parents of the deceased informed the court that they had been rendered destitute, surviving by begging on the streets, as they had been unable to secure employment. They further disclosed that they had been forced to vacate their home and were now living on footpaths.
Read More: PM Degree Row: Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On DU Plea Against Info Disclosure