Bombay High Court

DIGAMBER RAMJI @ RAMA PHEDEWAD DIED THROUGH LRS SHANTABAI W/O. DIGAMBER PHEDEWAD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that since the diary extracts were already on record, no further direction was required, and any action against the police officials must be pursued through a private complaint.

Summary

The petitioners sought a court direction to produce extracts of police station diary entries dated 25-27 June 2021 and to initiate action against two police officials alleged to have interfered with judicial proceedings. The High Court observed that the diary extracts had already been placed on record, rendering a further direction unnecessary. It clarified that any grievance regarding the alleged interference could be pursued by the petitioners through a private complaint under the appropriate law. The Court also noted that the second‑appeal court could be approached for directions if the police officials were indeed acting without authority. Consequently, the Court declined to grant the specific directions sought and disposed of the petition. The decision emphasizes the procedural route of filing a private complaint rather than judicial intervention for such allegations.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should direct the production of police station diary extracts in the writ petition.
Whether the Court can order action against police officials for alleged interference in judicial proceedings.

Subjects

Police interference
Judicial proceeding
Police station diary
Private complaint
Criminal writ petition
High Court

Judgment

                                         (1)
                                                         16 Cri.WP-781.2021.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
         16 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 781 OF 2021

 DIGAMBER RAMJI @ RAMA PHEDEWAD DIED THROUGH
LRS SHANTABAI W/O DIGAMBER PHEDEWAD AND OTHERS
                     VERSUS
      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                   …
          Mr. Arwind Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners.
            Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
                              ...
                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                            VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                    DATED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2026.

Per Court :

1.   Heard.

2.   The petition is filed for direction to produce extracts of

police    station   diary        dated    25.06.2021,        26.06.2021   and

27.06.2021 and also for initiating action against respondent

Nos.2 and 3, who are the police officials alleged to have

interfering in the judicial proceeding.

3.   The said station diary entries are already placed on

record.      However,       in    respect      of   taking    action   against

respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners are at liberty to lodge

any private complaint against them, if they really are

interfering in judicial proceeding.             Even the, Court which is

hearing the second appeal, can be moved for direction, if

respondent Nos.2 and 3, without any right are, interfering in
                               (2)
                                              16 Cri.WP-781.2021.odt
judicial proceeding. In view of the same, we are not inclined to

grant any direction in this matter.     However, the petitioners

may take action, as permissible under law, against respondent

Nos.2 and 3 about their alleged illegal interference in the

judicial proceeding, separately.

4.    With these directions, the present petition stands

disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)              (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                 JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…