1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2021 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2021 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2021 OF 2005 Kamalakar Shenoy ...Petitioner Kamalakar Shenoy ...Petitioner Kamalakar Shenoy ...Petitioner Vs. Vs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Mr.Prakash Naik Adv. for Petitioner Mr.Prakash Naik Adv. for Petitioner Mr.Prakash Naik Adv. for Petitioner Mr.V.B.Konde Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State Mr.V.B.Konde Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State Mr.V.B.Konde Deshmukh, A.P.P. for State CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2006 DATED: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2006 DATED: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Naik learned Counsel for the 1. Heard Mr. Naik learned Counsel for the 1. Heard Mr. Naik learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleges that there are Petitioner. The Petitioner alleges that there are Petitioner. The Petitioner alleges that there are certain developers operating in the Nalasopara area certain developers operating in the Nalasopara area certain developers operating in the Nalasopara area who are indulging in malpractices including issuance who are indulging in malpractices including issuance who are indulging in malpractices including issuance of false and bogus completion certificates. As per of false and bogus completion certificates. As per of false and bogus completion certificates. As per the Petitioner the said area has been developed by the Petitioner the said area has been developed by the Petitioner the said area has been developed by CIDCO and these builders/developers are playing fraud CIDCO and these builders/developers are playing fraud CIDCO and these builders/developers are playing fraud on the members of the public. The Petitioner had on the members of the public. The Petitioner had on the members of the public. The Petitioner had submitted complaint dated 12th April 1999 and a submitted complaint dated 12th April 1999 and a submitted complaint dated 12th April 1999 and a reminder on 19th February 2001. He appears to have reminder on 19th February 2001. He appears to have reminder on 19th February 2001. He appears to have submitted last complaint on 25th November 2001 in submitted last complaint on 25th November 2001 in submitted last complaint on 25th November 2001 in respect of the alleged offence punishable under respect of the alleged offence punishable under respect of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 107, 197, 198, 217, 218, 406, 465,467, 471 Sections 107, 197, 198, 217, 218, 406, 465,467, 471 Sections 107, 197, 198, 217, 218, 406, 465,467, 471 and 120(B) r.w. Section 34, of Indian Penal Code to and 120(B) r.w. Section 34, of Indian Penal Code to and 120(B) r.w. Section 34, of Indian Penal Code to the Senior Police Inspector, Economic Offences Wing the Senior Police Inspector, Economic Offences Wing the Senior Police Inspector, Economic Offences Wing (Housing Unit), Mumbai. The Petitioner alleges that (Housing Unit), Mumbai. The Petitioner alleges that (Housing Unit), Mumbai. The Petitioner alleges that Mr.Ramakant Jadhav and his family members along with Mr.Ramakant Jadhav and his family members along with Mr.Ramakant Jadhav and his family members along with 2 other associates are running the following other associates are running the following other associates are running the following construction companies/firms : construction companies/firms : construction companies/firms : (a) (a) (a) Network Construction Pvt. Ltd. Network Construction Pvt. Ltd. Network Construction Pvt. Ltd. (b) (b) (b) Reliale Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Reliale Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Reliale Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (C) (C) (C) Reliable Space Promoters & Developers and Reliable Space Promoters & Developers and Reliable Space Promoters & Developers and (d) (d) (d) Pratik Enterprises Pratik Enterprises Pratik Enterprises . He also alleges that one Mr. Abhay Raut is . He also alleges that one Mr. Abhay Raut is . He also alleges that one Mr. Abhay Raut is the Architect of these firms and inspite of his the Architect of these firms and inspite of his the Architect of these firms and inspite of his complaints being made to the concerned Police complaints being made to the concerned Police complaints being made to the concerned Police authorities they are not taking due steps for authorities they are not taking due steps for authorities they are not taking due steps for investigations. investigations. investigations. 2. We have noticed that the Petitioner had first 2. We have noticed that the Petitioner had first 2. We have noticed that the Petitioner had first made the complaint dated 27th November 1995 to the made the complaint dated 27th November 1995 to the made the complaint dated 27th November 1995 to the Managing Director of CIDCO and its officials. It is Managing Director of CIDCO and its officials. It is Managing Director of CIDCO and its officials. It is also clear that the Petitioner approached the office also clear that the Petitioner approached the office also clear that the Petitioner approached the office of Lok Ayukta, Maharashtra State and by the letter of Lok Ayukta, Maharashtra State and by the letter of Lok Ayukta, Maharashtra State and by the letter dated 13th January 1996 he was informed by the dated 13th January 1996 he was informed by the dated 13th January 1996 he was informed by the Assistant Registrar from the office of Lok Ayukt that Assistant Registrar from the office of Lok Ayukt that Assistant Registrar from the office of Lok Ayukt that CIDCO had already initiated criminal cases against the CIDCO had already initiated criminal cases against the CIDCO had already initiated criminal cases against the concerned developers. None of these private parties concerned developers. None of these private parties concerned developers. None of these private parties are impleaded as Respondents in this Petition which are impleaded as Respondents in this Petition which are impleaded as Respondents in this Petition which has been undoubtedly moved belatedly having regards to has been undoubtedly moved belatedly having regards to has been undoubtedly moved belatedly having regards to the complaint dated 25th November 2001. If the the complaint dated 25th November 2001. If the the complaint dated 25th November 2001. If the Petitioner claims that his complaints submitted to the Petitioner claims that his complaints submitted to the Petitioner claims that his complaints submitted to the concerned Police Authorities are not being registered concerned Police Authorities are not being registered concerned Police Authorities are not being registered 3 or investigated into, he has an equally efficacious or investigated into, he has an equally efficacious or investigated into, he has an equally efficacious remedy to approach the concerned Metropolitan remedy to approach the concerned Metropolitan remedy to approach the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and seek directions for investigations Magistrate and seek directions for investigations Magistrate and seek directions for investigations under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. We under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. We under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. We are satisfied that this Petition moved before us are satisfied that this Petition moved before us are satisfied that this Petition moved before us belatedly does not deserve to be entertained and it belatedly does not deserve to be entertained and it belatedly does not deserve to be entertained and it would be appropriate that the Petitioner is relegated would be appropriate that the Petitioner is relegated would be appropriate that the Petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy under the Criminal Procedure to the alternative remedy under the Criminal Procedure to the alternative remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code. Code. Code. . The Petition is therefore, rejected summarily. . The Petition is therefore, rejected summarily. . The Petition is therefore, rejected summarily. (ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)