The Bombay High Court on Thursday expressed profound dismay over an order issued by a Thane Sessions Court judge, which effectively stayed the findings of a Magistrate Enquiry.
This enquiry had determined that there was substantive merit in the allegations put forth by the parents of the accused in the Badlapur Sexual Assault Case, who asserted that their son had been extrajudicially executed in a “fake encounter.”
A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale raised serious concerns regarding the propriety of such an order, particularly given that the matter was already under their court’s purview and was being heard at regular intervals.
Significantly, the five police officers implicated in the alleged extrajudicial execution had approached the Thane Sessions Court, seeking to suspend the findings of the Magistrate Enquiry. The enquiry had concluded that the police action on the relevant day was “unjustified” and that the encounter bore characteristics of a staged event.
Expressing consternation over the Sessions Court’s February 21 ruling, 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 scrutinized Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar on whether the State had actively opposed the police officers’ revision application before the Sessions Court. Venegavkar affirmed that opposition was raised, but the court appeared unimpressed with the State’s stance.
“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 further questioned Venegavkar, in his capacity as both a State Prosecutor and an officer of the court, 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 continue pursuing the case, citing the extensive 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 5 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 execution.
On September 25, 2024, the court had questioned the plausibility of the accused—described as not possessing a particularly strong physical stature—being incapable of being subdued by the police officials present at the scene. The court also noted that the officer who purportedly discharged his weapon at the accused could not plausibly claim ignorance regarding the 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, forced to beg on the streets due to their inability to secure employment. They further disclosed that they had been compelled to vacate their home and were now living on the streets.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
