1 cri-wp-527-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 527 OF 2011 Harita Sunil Parab ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Ms. Harita Sunil Parab, petitioner, party-in-person present. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State. Mr. Shailesh Kantharia for respondent no.4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. August 04, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard the petitioner, party-in-person and Ms. Mhatre the learned APP for the State of Maharashtra. Mr. Shailesh Kantharia, the learned counsel appears for respondent no.4. 2. The report dated 27/6/2011 submitted by the Investigating 2 cri-wp-527-11.doc Officer from Dadabhai Nauroji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai states that pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been put in possession of the subject room, from which she was claimed to have been illegally dispossessed. She also states that as per the order passed by this court on 19/4/2011, she collected all her belongings/articles. 3. The petitioner, party-in-person, therefore, urged before us that the only relief, which requires to be considered in this petition for payment of compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to be paid to her by the landlord i.e. respondent no.4. and in support of this prayer she has invited our attention to her Advocate’s notice dated 21/7/2010 addressed to respondent no.4. It appears from the said notice that on 5/6/2010 when petitioner entered the bathroom with hot water, she slipped and fell down and sustained heavy burn injuries. She was admitted to the hospital for treatment for which he had to spent about Rs.3,00,000/-. As per the petitioner, this incident had taken place solely because of the negligence of the landlord in maintaining the toilet block and other premises in good conditions. It is thus clear that the claim for compensation, as raised through legal notice dated 21/7/2010, does not arise or has no connection 3 cri-wp-527-11.doc with the main grievance raised in this petition, namely, illegal dispossession. The petitioner’s remedy for recovery of compensation/ damages from the landlord may be somewhere else and such a prayer cannot be entertained in the instant petition. 4. Hence, the petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for recovery of compensation/damages from the landlord. 5. We make it clear that the observations made in this order are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)