Mumbai court permits issuance of summons to lawyer in ragging case

A Mumbai court recently upheld a magistrate's decision to summon a lawyer (applicant) in a case involving allegations of ragging a fellow law student in 2014, although he had not been named by the police in their chargesheet [Atharva Rajeev Sawant v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.]..Additional sessions judge SN Salve relied upon Supreme court judgments which held that a magistrate could summon any person as an accused, even if that person had not been arraigned as an accused in the first information report (FIR). "The order under challenge passed by the Magistrate summoning the applicant (lawyer) is legal, proper and correct," the additional sessions judge concluded in an order dated October 31..The case arose in 2014 when one of the accused in the case is alleged to have thrown a shoe that accidentally hit the victim. The incident took place on the campus of the Pravin Gandhi Law College in Mumbai. The victim then complained to the college principal..One of the accused is also said to have taunted the victim, saying that a co-accused was the son of a top criminal lawyer who would protect them. "Le Kya Ukhad Liya Principal Ke Pass Jakar, Vaise Bhi ... father is a top criminal lawyer, So Tu Kahin Bhi Nahi Jit Payagi (Translation: What have you gained from going to the Principal, anyway father of one of the accused is a top criminal lawyer, you will not win anywhere)," the court order mentioned..When neither the college nor police registered an FIR over the incident, the victim approached the Bombay High Court seeking orders to initiate criminal proceedings.After the High Court ordered registration of FIR, the Mumbai police registered a case for various offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC).After the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet only against two of three law students who were alleged to have been involved in the incident..When the chargesheet was presented before the Magistrate for taking cognizance, the victim also approached the court with a plea to summon the third student (applicant), which the magistrate allowed. While doing so, the magistrate remarked that the investigating officer had favoured and left out the applicant in a "very biased and unprofessional manner."“Despite the existence of well founded accusations against him and disclosure of his name in FIR, statements of witnesses and suspension order issued by Principal of college, IO has dropped Sawant at the time of filing of charge-sheet for the reasons best known to her. This act of the Investigating Officer is very serious and unacceptable. Being Investigating officer, she has voluntarily acted in favour of accused and committed deliberate dereliction of duty with intention to drop the accused prejudicial to the case of prosecution,” the magistrate held. .This was challenged by the applicant before the sessions court in a revision application. Advocates Rizwan Merchant and Sayaji Nangre appeared for him and argued that the magistrate's order of summons was not correct as summons could only be issued to a person who has been named in the chargesheet. The sessions court however held that the magistrate's order was legal and valid and dismissed the applicant's revision application..[Read order]