1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2947 OF 2009 Adv. Sneha Vilas Shahasane .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Petitioner, party-in-person, present. Mr. P. A. Pol, PP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JUNE 25, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the petitioner, party-in-person and Mr. Pol, the learned PP for the respondent nos.1 and 6. 2. The petitioner is a learned member of the Bar and she resides with other members of her family at Flat No. A-513, Sunder Nagar, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028. She had lodged an NC complaint against Shri Ganesh Kamble and his wife Vaishali Kamble on 28/9/2009. On 29/9/2009 she again lodged another NC complaint 2 against Mrs. Lata Pawar alleging that with the aid of Kamble family, Lata Pawar was abusing and harassing the petitioner and her family members. She addressed a written complaint on 30/9/2009 to the Senior PI, Dadar Police Station, but no action has taken. She, therefore, filed a private complaint registered as RCC No. 90/SW/2009 with the 5th court of Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 381, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. An order to investigate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was passed in the said complaint on 9/10/2009. The petitioner alleges that Vaishali Kamble abused and humiliated her on 12/10/2009 and, therefore, she filed an application in the private complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. She received a phone call for settlement of the said private complaint and extortion of money by Kamble family with threats, if the demands were not met, on 19/10/2009. As per the petitioner, on 29/10/2009 she herself, her mother and other family members were assaulted and the petitioner had sustained injuries. Her mother and sisters were also injured in the said assault and Kamble family ladies as well as Lata Pawar had stolen the jewellery on the person of the petitioner and her family members. She, therefore, went to file an FIR to the police station on 29/10/2009 but it was refused to be lodged. Hence, she filed yet another 3 complaint in the 5th court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 30/9/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 148, 149, 326, 307, 341, 380, 383, 448, 451, 452, 504, 506 of IPC and order for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was immediately passed. The petitioner alleges that despite these orders, no FIR was registered, unless she complained to the Addl. Commissioner of Police on 2/11/2009. She alleges that inaction on the part of the police is deliberate and under the influence of Kambles and Pawars. She further claims that unless the police act, the safety of the petitioner and the members of her family is in danger and they are receiving constant threats from the accused persons. 3. Shri Vijay Ramchandra Shinde, PI attached to Dadar Police Station has filed affidavit-in-reply. It has been stated in the said affidavit that on 29/10/2009 the petitioner made a phone call in the night to the Central Region Control Room and Dadar Police Station stating that her neighbour Vaishali Kamble along with 4-5 women entered her house and threatened to withdraw the private complaint filed in the court of 5th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Dadar and she was assaulted with the help of weapons and her sister and mother were beaten up with fist and blows. Police from Dadar Police Station rushed to the house of the 4 petitioner and the petitioner was taken to KEM Hospital for medical treatment. The affidavit further alleges that the petitioner forced the police to register an FIR under Section 307 of IPC against Vaishali Kamble and 4-5 other women. The Duty Officer – PSI Gaikwad informed the petitioner that the FIR would be registered under Section 324 of IPC. On 30/10/2009 again the petitioner visited the Dadar Police Station along with an order dated 30/10/2009 passed by the learned Addl. CMM in Misc. Application No. 32 of 2009. The case was, therefore, assigned to PI Bangale of Dadar Police Station to register an FIR and to make further investigation. In the said investigation, PI Bangale sent two police constables to the residence of the petitioner on 1/11/2009 asking her to remain present on 2/11/2009 at Dadar Police Station. The petitioner visited the Dadar Police Station on 2/11/2009 but refused to sign the FIR and despite this the FIR bearing MECR No. 3 of 2009 came to be registered. Investigations were undertaken and the IO recorded the statements of some persons on 4/11/2009 and 16/11/2009. The police have thus denied the allegations that they did not take appropriate action on the complaints filed by the petitioner. The police have also pointed out that there are number of CRs and NC complaints as well as Chapter cases registered against the petitioner and her family members (3 CRs, 11 NC cases and 2 Chapter 5 cases). The petitioner has then filed additional affidavit which we have perused. 4. The limited grievance of the petitioner for investigation by a Senior Police Officer, who is not attached to Dadar Police Station, has not been opposed by the State and, in fact, Shri Pol, the learned PP, submitted a list of four lady police officers in the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police. He submitted that the State would have no objection if further investigation as directed by the learned Addl. CMM in both the private complaints filed by the petitioner is undertaken by appointing any of these officers as an IO. 5. We, therefore, direct that Smt. Kala Gavit, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ghatkopar Zone will take over the investigation in MECR No. 3 of 2009 as well as the investigations directed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. CMM and as referred to hereinabove. The investigation shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and Smt. Kala Gavit, IO, appointed by us shall take further appropriate steps as per law on completion of the investigation, including report to be filed in the 5th court of Addl. CMM. 6 6. The petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)