SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL Vs. VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION

The case of Shatrughna Atmaram Patil V.s Vinod Chaudhary was involved in a legal case. The premises in question were initially possessed by three tenants. However, for the purposes of this case, we focus on two tenants: Vijaykumar Vishwanath Dhawale and Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary and the property owners is quite complex. From what you’ve shared, it appears that the third tenant did not file a complaint, so they are not part of the current legal proceedings. The property owned by Rajeev Ramrao Chavan, who later sold it to five individuals namely Sanjay Nathmal Jain, Sunil Mishrilal Jain, Manoj Mishrilal Jain, Ghanshyam Bansilal Agrawal and Prasannachand Sobhagmal Parakh, through a registered sale deed dated on 27^th October 2021. The property ownership changed hands, and unfortunately, the previous owner passed away under suspicious circumstances. The tenants were then called to the police station, and during that time, the property was demolished although no FIR was registered under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It sounds like a challenging and legally intricate situation for all involved.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The premises in question were initially possessed by three tenants. However, for the purposes of this case, we focus on two tenants: Vijaykumar Vishwanath Dhawale and Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary.
2. The property was owned by Rajeev Ramrao Chavan, who later sold it to five individuals.
3. Unfortunately, Rajeev Ramrao Chavan passed away, allegedly by suicide, leaving behind a suicide note that implicated the tenants as abettors.
4. Based on this note, a complaint was filed with the local police, but no FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On March 9, 2022, the tenants were called to the police station and held for about 24 hours. During this time, the premises were demolished by the deceased-vendor’s brother and widow, with the support of local police.
6. The Supreme Court, in its judgment on January 30, 2024, imposed a cost of Rs. 6 lakhs on six police personnel of the Maharashtra Police. These officers were found to have conspired, illegally detained the tenants, coerced them to sign documents against their will, and demolished the property without any order from a competent court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. What were the specific findings regarding the police officers’ conduct?
2. How did the Supreme Court address the issue of illegal detention and coercion?

COURT’S REASONING

1. Date of Revision Court. 

The order dated 23.03.2023 was challenged before the High Court by all the 13 accused through separate petitions under Section 482 CrPC. And Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, while deciding these petitions, not only approved the order of the Sessions Judge but also issued further directions in connection with the investigation by the impugned order dated 23.10.2023. It is this order which has been challenged before us through these six petitions. Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 15433/2023 and Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 15294/2023 have been filed by the brother of the deceased in connection with two complaints made by two tenants. Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 14734-14735/2023 has again been filed by five buyers under the sale deed dated 27.10.2021 in respect of two complaints filed by two tenants. Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 14585/2023 and Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 14572/2023 have been filed again by six police personnel arising out of two complaints filed by two tenants. 

2. During the pendency of the petitions it appears that between the complainants and the 13 accused, some compromise has been reached. Subsequent buyers have paid a sum of Rs. Rs 10 lakh to each tenant and in return, the tenants have filed affidavits stating that they do not want to pursue further prosecution of their complaint. Bank Draft Details Mentioned Criminal Miscellaneous. The same has been made in the affidavit filed by the tenants in Petition No. 8150/2024 as well as in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 14734-14735/2023. On the basis of this compromise, it is prayed that these petitions be allowed, and the proceedings arising out of the two criminal complaints be proceeded with under Section 156(3) of CrPC. Should be cancelled.
3. As stated in the affidavit, compensation to the tenants has been given by the subsequent purchasers, apparently because they are now the owners of the property and have played a significant role in carrying out the demolition illegally. The widow of the deceased (although we are not a party before us) and the brother cannot have any further interest because the deceased had sold the property only four and a half months before his death. However, we are not satisfied as to why the police personnel were acquitted in a case where they had a clear role in conspiring and abetting the crime of illegal detention of tenants by forcing them to sign. Forging documents against their will, and demolishing the premises in question without the order of any competent court.
4. We, however, make it clear that any comments made by the six police personnel and the direction to give compensation to the tenants will not be considered as prejudicial to their interest while considering their promotions etc. The order cannot be placed in their service records.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

The court has directed that the six police personnel will have to pay a cost of Rs. 6.0 lakhs for each of the two complainants. The cost is distributed as Rs. 50,000 for each constable, Rs. 1,00,000 for the Head Constable, Rs. 1.50 lakhs for the Sub-Inspector, and Rs. 2.0 lakhs for the Inspector, totalling Rs. 6.0 lakhs for each case. This amount needs to be deposited in the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks. If the proof of deposit is not filed within the specified time, the petitions filed by the police personnel would be dismissed. The proceedings of the two complaint cases will be quashed and closed upon depositing the amount. 

REFERENCE

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159752479/
2. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/45672/45672_2023_8_1502_49942_Judgement_30-Jan-2024.pdf

-Written by RIYA SHARMA an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin