1 wp.3412-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3412 OF 2010 Satyesh R. Shetty ...Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. ----- Mr. Prakash Naik, for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. ---- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 29, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the following two specific reliefs have been sought: (a) The cognizance of complaint of the petitioner may be directed to be taken in respect to the incident dated 26.9.2010 by registering appropriate offences against the accused and on registering the said offences, the investigation may be 2 wp.3412-2010 transferred to any other Police Agency. (b) The Respondent no.6 be directed to initiate appropriate Departmental Enquiry against the misconduct of the Respondent nos.2 o 5 with suitable action in that regard as provided by law. 3. So far as the second prayer is concerned, by our order dated 24.6.2011 we directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Ram Nagar Police Station to make an inquiry into the petitioner’s complaint dated 18.10.2010 . 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police at Dombivli Shri Mandaleshwar M. Kale has filed an affidavit-in-reply after conducting the inquiry into the complaint. 5. We have perused the affidavit-in-reply as well as the complaint dated 16.10.2010. It does not make out any case warranting an inquiry or any other action against the respondents. 3 wp.3412-2010 6. So far as the first prayer is concerned, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case, the petitioner ought to be relegated to the remedy of filing a private complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction. 7. The NCs have already been recorded by the concerned police station on the basis of the complaints and counter complaints submitted by the petitioner as well as by the accused persons. Both the parties are members of Karnataka Sangh, and the allegations appeared to be based on the management of the said Sangh. 8. Hence, the Petition is rejected with liberty to file a private complaint, if so advised. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)