LexSHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS. versus VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1128 : 2024 INSC 75 Shatrughna Atmaram Patil & Ors. v. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023) 30 January 2024 [Vikram Nath* And Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration One R (owner) sold premises in dispute to five persons. Thereafter, R committed suicide and left behind a suicide note, naming the tenants, who were in possession of premises in question, as abettors. On the strength of the same, a complaint was made to the local police. The tenants were held in police station and the premises in question were demolished with the help of local police. Thereafter, two tenants filed complaint u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was forwarded to the concerned Police Station for registration and investigation. The High Court approved the order of the investigation. Headnotes Settlement – During the pendency of the petitions, a settlement was arrived between the parties: Held: During the pendency of the petitions, it appears that some settlement has been arrived at between the complainants and the 13 accused – The subsequent purchasers (of the premises in question) have paid an amount of Rs. 10 lacs to each of the tenants, and in lieu thereof, the tenants have filed their affidavits stating that they do not wish to further prosecute their complaint – The details of the bank drafts have also been mentioned in the affidavits filed by the tenants – Based on this settlement, it is prayed that these petitions may be allowed, and the proceedings arising out of the two criminal complaints u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. be quashed – Since, losses of tenants having been compensated, any further investigation or trial would be an exercise in futility. [Paras 7 and 8] Cost – Imposition of – Role of the police personnel in conspiring and abetting the crime of the illegal detention of [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1129 Shatrughna Atmaram Patil & Ors. v. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary & Anr. the tenants, coercing them to sign the document against their will, and getting the premises in question demolished without any order from a competent Court: Held: It is directed that the six police personnel will suffer a cost of Rs. 6.0 lacs for each of the two complainants – Out of the six police personnel, three are constables, one is a Head Constable, one is a Sub-Inspector, and one is an Inspector – They shall suffer a cost of Rs. 50,000/- per Constable, Rs.1,00,000/- by the Head Constable, Rs. 1.50 lacs by the Sub-Inspector, and Rs. 2.0 lacs by the Inspector, totalling Rs. 6.0 lacs for each case with the above distribution. [Para 10] List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List Keywords Suicide; Suicide note; Tenants; Abettors; Demolition of property; Complaint; Investigation; Settlement; Compensation; Cost; Imposition of cost on Police Personnel. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.14585 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLWP No.474 of 2023. With SLP. (Crl.) Nos.14572, 14734-14735, 15433 and 15294 of 2023 Appearances for Parties Rahul Chitnis, Hersh Desai, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Rucha A. Pande, M. Veeraragavan, Ms. Gautami Yadav, Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Jitendra Patil, Sagar Nandkumar Pahune Patil, Yash Prashant Sonavane, Advs. for the Petitioners. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Raavi Sharma, Ms. Yamini Singh, Anish R. Shah, Advs. for the Respondents. 1130 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. The premises in question were in the possession of three tenants. However, for the present, we are concerned with only two tenants, namely Vijaykumar Vishwanath Dhawale and Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary. As the third tenant had not filed any complaint and only the above two named complainants have filed the complaint, that is why the third tenant is not a party to the proceedings. 2. The premises in dispute were owned by one Rajeev Ramrao Chavan. He sold the property to five persons, namely Sanjay Nathmal Jain, Sunil Mishrilal Jain, Manoj Mishrilal Jain, Ghanshyam Bansilal Agrawal and Prasannachand Sobhagmal Parakh, vide registered sale deed dated 27.10.2021. Unfortunately, Rajeev Ramrao Chavan, the v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.