1 wp.1707-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1707 OF 2011 Mrs. Nafis Mohammed Sami Chowdhari alias Mrs. Nafees Choudhari ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/b Ma/s Mayur Narendra & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State. Mr. Shoib I. Memon, for Respondent nos.2. ---- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. AUGUST 03, 2011. P.C.: 1 This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for the following reliefs: (a) for appropriate writ order or direction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent no.1 to investigate the Petitioner’s complaints set out in 2 wp.1707-2011 Exhibit “J” to the Petition and submit report to this Hon’ble Court and to take appropriate action for congizable offences committed by the Respondent no.2. (b) appropriate writ order or direction, directing the Respondent no.1 to give protection to the petitioner by deputing a female constable at the said premises i.e. Flat no.3, Bansari C.H.S. Ltd., Plot no.28, Pali Naka, 30th Road, Bandra(West), Mumbai at the costs of the petitioner. 2. The Exhibit-J to the Petition is the list of complaints viz. 1. NCR 1653/2010 dated 7.7.2010 2. NCR 2173/2010 dated 14.9.2010 3. NCR 2594/2010 dated 4.10.2010 4. NCR 2408 dated 15.10.2010 5. NCR 7/2010 dated 1.11.2010 6. NCR 10/2010 dated 9.11.2010 7. NCR 4/2011 dated 11.1.2011 8. NCR 522/2011 dated 3.4.2011 9. NCR 47/2011 dated 5.4.2011 10. NCR 52/2011 dated 15.4.2011 11. Complaint of the petitioner dated 1.10.2010 12. Complaint of the petitioner dated 10.1.2011 3 wp.1707-2011 3. It is seen from the above list of complaints in Exhibit-J that in serial nos. 1 to 10 NCs came to be recorded on the complaint filed by the petitioner or on her behalf. The remaining two complaints i.e. the first one dated 1.10.2010 and the second one dated 10.1.2011. A copy of the complaint dated 1.10.2010 is not on record, but, the copy of the complaint dated 10.1.2011 has been annexed to the Petition as Exhibit-F. The petitioner is the mother of respondent no.2 who is marred. Admittedly the Gift Deed was signed on 15.8.2008 by the petitioner by which the subject flat i.e. Flat no.3, Bansari C.H.S. Ltd., Plot no.28, Pali Naka, 30th Road, Bandra(West), Mumbai came to be gifted to respondent no.2. However, subsequently the petitioner claimed that the Gift Deed was signed fraudulently and on mis-representation and the said Gift Deed is subject matter of challenge in the civil suits. The petitioner has filed a suit bearing no.1473 of 2010, and the petitioner’s son has filed a suit bearing no.166 of 2011 challenging the said will. From the record it is seen that Criminal Writ Petition no.2747 of 2010 came to be filed by the son alleging that the petitioner mother was in unlawful custody of respondent no.2. The said Petition was disposed off without expressing any opinion by this court on 11.10.2010 as the petitioner mother was produced before the court and none other than the son produced her, and the petitioner made a statement 4 wp.1707-2011 before the court on 11.10.2010 that she was residing with her son in the subject flat, and if that be so, it is not known why the writ petition for habeas corpus was filed by the son. 4. Now coming to the complaint dated 1.10.2011 submitted by the petitioner to the Senior Inspect of of Police, Khar Police Station, Mumbai, it is noted that she was hospitalized during the period from 8.7.2010 to 15.7.2010, and from 21.10.2010 to 5.11.2010 and during this period the daughter i.e. respondent no.2 had thrown away the articles of the petitioner’s son and his family and he was dispossessed. It has been further alleged that the daughter had changed the locks of her son’s bedroom and the main door with ulterior motives and this caused loss and hardship to the petitioner’s son and his family. She also alleged that the following articles are missing from the house viz. clothes, including woolen clothes, Shoes, 7 gold bangles worth Rs.2,80,000/-, one necklace worth Rs.1,20,000/-, two chains worth Rs.35,000/-, one bracelet worth Rs.30,000/-, two rings worth Rs.12000/-, one green stone gold ring worth Rs.8000/-, antiques and gifts worth Rs.35000/-, Income tax return files of Akbar Sami, previsous and rare music collections of Akbar Sami etc. However, the complaint does not states that these articles were stolen away by the daughter, instead the 5 wp.1707-2011 complaint alleges that “ I say that other than me and my daughter Shaheen Taj Hussain, their servant Islam, no other person are residing in my flat. I say that items at sr. nos. (ix) to (xii) were in my cupboard belonging to my son Akbar Sami and the same are stolen from my cupboard along with other items listed hereinabove. I say that my daughter Shaheen has dishonestly and with ill motive has got the gift deed registered in her favour. Shaheen Ali along with her husband Zaigam Ali Sayed and the other four daughters have played this planned fraud on me. They have taken advantage of my ill health and breached my trust, they have also abused and assaulted me many times after I have filed the court case, threatening me to withdraw the said case or my son’s life will be in danger, they have also threatened and abused Mr. Tantra our society chairman who is also a senior citizen, that if he doesn’t transfer the said flat on her (Shaheen’s) name they will break his legs and also used filthy language, the complaints towards the same are on record. The said Gift Deed is challenged by me and suit no. 1473 of 2010 is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.” 6 wp.1707-2011 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the report dated 20.7.2011 submitted by Senior Police Inspector from Khar Police Station to the learned Public Prosecutor. NC no. 793 of 2011 was rightly registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC on the basis of the complaint dated 10.1.2011, and if the petitioner is not satisfied by the said action of the police, she may file a private complaint, if she could make out a cognizable offence. 6. Hence, the Petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)