1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 791 OF 2010 P. S. Dhamdhere .. Petitioner Vs. V. B. Bagave and ors. .. Respondents Mr. K. D. Hadkar for petitioner. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 8. Respondent No.6 present in Court. Mr. Prakash Shetty for respondent no.7. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JUNE 14, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Hadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Adsule, the learned APP appears for respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 8. Respondent No. 6 is present in the court and Mr. Shetty appears for respondent no.7. 2 2. On the basis of the complaints submitted by the petitioner, C.R. No. 261 of 2009 came to be registered on 29/12/2009 with the Kurla Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(II) read with Section 34 of IPC against four accused persons, namely, Ajay @ Balu Laxman Yadav, Sanjay Laxman Yadav, Nikhil Ajay Yadav and Prakash Shinde. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on or about 29/12/2009 he had approached to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and an offence was made out under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the said offence has not been included in the FIR registered. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the Senior PI of Kurla Police Station or the Competent Officer in-charge for Kurla Police Station to register an FIR for the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act against respondent no.7. The petitioner states that he belongs to scheduled caste (Chambhar) and the respondent no.7 is aware of his social status. The respondent no.7 has abused him on his caste on more than one occasions in the month of December 2009 as well as in the month of January, 2010 and as and when he approached the Kurla Police Station with a complaint for the offences punishable under the Atrocities Act, his 3 complaint was not recorded, alleges the petitioner. 4. Mr. Adsule, the learned APP has placed before us the record which indicates that on 20/12/2009 the petitioner’s statement was recorded and no such offence punishable under the Atrocities Act was made out in the said statement. Mr Adsule also pointed out that on 24/12/2009 the petitioner approached the police station and gave in writing that he did not have any complaint against the respondent no.7 and that all his earlier complaints be closed. In reply to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is illiterate and he was forced to sign on all these statements or applications. Mr. Adsule also pointed out that the complaint relied upon by the petitioner has been filed after the FIR was registered and it is only by way of an after thought. 5. We have noticed that the alleged complaints dated 22/12/2009 and 25/12/2009 have not been submitted by the petitioner himself and if they are so submitted, there is no reason why he would use an Advocate’s letter-head. It is obvious that by way of an after thought these complaints were drafted by the Advocate concerned and addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and both of them were submitted to the 4 said officer and to other various authorities, including the Home Ministry on 29/12/2009. On the face of these complaints, we do not find any deficiencies in the investigation of the complaint on the basis of which C.R. No. 261 of 2009 has been registered. 6. However, if the petitioner/complainant has any specific instances that have taken place in the month of December, 2009 or January, 2010, making out an offence under the Atrocities Act, he is at liberty to approach the Kurla Police Station and we have been assured that the Competent Officer responsible for Kurla Police Station shall record his complaint and take further steps as are required to be taken under the law. 7. Save and except the above directions, the petition stands disposed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)