1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 669 OF 2008 MAGANLAL S/o SOMALALPATEL ) residing at Room No. 13, ) Amrutlal Wadi,Gangadhar Pillaji) Chaudhari Marg, Vile Parle (W) ) Mumbai 400 049 ) .. PETITIONER Vs. 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ) through Inspector Incharge, ) Juhu Police Station, Juhu, ) to be served through Public ) Prosecutor, High Court, ) Mumbai. ) 2. LINGAPPA RAMA ATHALE, API ) presently attached with Juhu) Police Station. ) .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.M.Saraogi i/b Mr. S.K. Chaurasiya for petitioner Ms. P.H. Kantharia, APP CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,JJ. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS 2 RESERVED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED:30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . The petitioner is an accused in C.R. No. 41 of 2007 and C.R. No. 25 of 2008 along with his partner one Mari Raman Devender. These cases are registered at Juhu Police Station. In this petition following prayers are made; . a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, order and direction directing transfer of all the complaints filed against the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 2 and/or by the police station of the Respondent No. 1 to some independent agency who shall also be directed to enquire into the act and deeds of the Respondent No. 2 acting as a police officer and as narrated in the present Petition and subject to outcome of the said enquiry, necessary steps be initiated in law against the defaulting person. 3 . b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, all cases registered against the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 2 and/or under the directions of Respondents No. 2 and/or by the Respondent No. 1 as narrated in the Petition be stayed and/or in alternate, Respondent No. 2 be kept away in all respect in the enquiries to be conducted in respect of the said cases. 2. On the last date of hearing Mr. Saraogi argued on behalf of the petitioner. Today Mr. Chaurasia carried on with the arguments. Both have reiterated the averments made in the petition. 3. Admittedly in C.R. No. 288 of 2008, to which a reference is made in this petition. the petitioner has been acquitted because the complainant and his wife did not support the prosecution and because a statement was made before learned Magistrate that the parties had settled the dispute on the basis of inter se settlement. If the petitioner was serious about the allegations qua this case he should have made them before learned Magistrate, who disposed of the said case. 4 Order passed by learned Magistrate which is shown to us indicates that the petitioner made no grievance before learned Magistrate. It is, therefore, not possible for us to examine the petitioner’s grievances, if any, qua that case. 4. So far as C.R. No. 25 of 2007 is concerned, we are informed that charge-sheet is filed in that case on 3/6/08. So far as C.R. No. 41 of 2007 is concerned charge-sheet is filed in that case on 2/7/07. While the petitioner states that the police have acted in a highhanded manner, concocted false cases and mercilessly beaten him, the case of the police is that the said cases are genuine and that it is the petitioner and his associates who attacked the police. Medical papers are submitted by both sides. Since charge-sheets are filed in these cases it is not possible for us to comment on the rival contentions. As to who is right only the trial court can decide. We, therefore, refrain from commenting on the above submissions. We, however, leave all contentions of both sides as regards the above submissions open so that they can agitate them in the trial. 5. We must mention that in this case very vague 5 allegation is made that the 2nd respondent is attempting to harass the petitioner in order to accept his illegal and unjustified demands. The petitioner had remedy of approaching the Anti Corruption Bureau which he has not adopted. Such vague allegations cannot be looked into. However, if the petitioner is so advised, he may approach the concerned branch of the police department with a complaint. Needless to say that if such a complaint is made the concerned officer will investigate it independently without being influenced by observations made by us in this order. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. JUDGE JUDGE