1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1320 OF 2008 Ambadas Bhimrao Pawar ...Petitioner Vs. Commissioner of Police, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rajesh S. Datar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P for the State CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 1.Heard Mr. Datar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned A.P.P appears for the Respondents. We have perused the order passed by this Court on 22 nd August, 2008. 2.The affidavit submitted by Shri Uttam Navghare, Assistant Commissioner of Police, DCB, CID, Mumbai. Mr. Datar invited our attention to the prayer in this Petition, which reads as under:- a. That this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon ble Court thereby directing the Respondents to decide the Complaint of the Petitioner dated 9th 2 January, 2008 and to take appropriate, necessary and suitable action against Sub Inspector Vijay Salunkhe and Assistant Police Inspector Sunil Ghosalkar attached to Crime Branch, Bandra of Mumbai within such time as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper . 3.The affidavit in reply filed by Shri Navghare states in paragraph 18 that the complaint dated 9 th January, 2008 submitted by the Petitioner was directed by the Commissioner of Police to be investigated by the Affiant and accordingly he submitted a detailed inquiry report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, DCB CID, Mumbai and it was also forwarded to th Home Department. As per the Affiant, in the inquiry conducted by him no substance was found in the complaint dated 9 th January, 2008. This Court while passing the order dated 22 nd August, 2008 had taken note of the affidavit in reply and directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thane to inquire into the matter and file a report to this Court within a period of 8 weeks. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge Thane, since then submitted his report dated 8 th April, 2009 along with the statements of 5 persons recorded by him or by his Predecessor. We have gone through the report as well as the statements so recorded and annexed to the report and we are satisfied that the complaint submitted by 3 the Petitioner on 9 th January, 2008 to the Respondent No.1 calls for fresh inquiry by Respondent No.1 and further necessary action based on such an inquiry. 4.Mr.Datar has referred to the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the Petitioner and more particularly the following averments made in paragraph 11 therein:- Pursuant to the complaint made by me on 10 th January, 2008 the Anti Corruption Department has recorded the telephonic conversations wherein phone calls were made from the mobile phone of API Ghosalkar (No.98701 62769) and PSI Ghosalkar from his mobile phone (No.93236 90206). I say that thereafter on next day i.e on 11 th January, 2008, the Officers of Anti Corruption Bureau asked me to visit Crime Branch, Bandra. At that time a voice recorder was placed inside my shirt on that day also the conversation between myself and the said officers was recorded, transcripts of the same are lying with the Anti Corruption Bureau. I say that the conversation earlier recorded by the Anti Corruption Department in presence of Panchas is also in possession of the Anti Corruption Department. The conversation clearly shows that a monetary demand was made to me by both the said officers . 5.Mr.Datar pointed out that during the pendency of this Writ Petition A.P.I. Ghosalkar died. 6.We are satisfied that the complaint dated 9 th January, 2008 requires to be inquired by the Respondent No.1 and 4 hence we direct that the said complaint be inquired into by the Respondent No.1 and while doing so the above referred statement made in the affidavit in rejoinder shall also be taken into consideration. The Petitioner shall be heard by the Respondent No.1 while inquiring into the said complaint and in case the inquiry results in some prima facie findings against the Officer or Officers, the Respondent No.1 will take appropriate departmental action. 7.The inquiry to be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months. 8.We also make it clear that the inquiry to be conducted by the Respondent No.1 will be on its own merits and without being influenced by the reports submitted earlier either by the A.C.P or by the learned Principal District Judge. 9.The Petition is disposed off. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]