1 cri-wp-2338-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2338 OF 2010 1. Mikhail Chistyakov and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. V. S. Hadade a/w Mr. Bapoo Malcolm and Viruf Katrak for petitioners. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State. Mr. Rafiq Dada, Sr. Counsel, with Mr. Percy Ghandy i/by M/s. Kry Legal for respondent nos.5 to 11. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 11, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mor, Superintendent of Police, Thane – Rural. We have also gone through the complaint dated 28/2/2010 that was submitted by the petitioner no.3 to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State with a copy to Mr. Pawar, API, Talasari Police 2 cri-wp-2338-10 Station in Dahanu Talukar of Thane District. 2. The petitioner in her complaint dated 28/2/2010 has alleged the incidents of offences that had taken place on 18th and 19th February, 2010 in the premises of S.B.B.S / Zoroastrian College and at the instance of some individuals i.e. Mr. Soli Katpitia, Mr. Noshir Dordi and Mr. Patrawalla (all from Surat, Gujarat and respondent nos. 9 to 11). The petitioners’ further complain that despite this communication, crime was not registered by the concerned police station so as to set in motion the investigation machinery. 3. Whereas, as per the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Superintendent of Police, as per our last order, on 18/2/2010 an application was submitted to the police station by respondent no.5 who is the Chairman of the Parsi Panchayat to the Talasari Police Station and a further complaint was again submitted on 19/2/2010. These complaints were against the petitioners alleging illegal religious activities. As per the affidavit of Mr.Pawar, API, from the Talasari Police Station, he called both the parties and with his intervention they agreed to end the disputes. Consequently, settlement terms were drawn and were signed by both the parties i.e. the 3 cri-wp-2338-10 petitioners, respondent no.5 and others. The affidavit further states that petitioner no.3 addressed a letter to Mr. Pawar thanking for his role for intervention and to bring about a settlement. It has been further stated that the complaint dated 28/2/2010 was forwarded by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State for investigation and a report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police by the Police Station i.e. Talasari Police Station on 17/5/2010 regarding the compromise between the parties. 4. The petitioner no.3 now states that she has not voluntarily signed the so called settlement recorded in writing and her letter of thanks is being misconstrued. The petitioners claim that the complaint dated 28/2/2010 requires investigation and it cannot be closed on the basis of the purported settlement claimed to have been drawn on 19/2/2010 by Mr. Pawar, API. 5. On the rival claims and counter claims made by the parties, we do not wish to express any opinion and if the petitioners are keen that their complaint dated 28/2/2010 is investigated into, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners shall be to file a private complaint before the learned JMFC at Dahanu or any other court of competent jurisdiction and 4 cri-wp-2338-10 seek an order either directing investigation under Section 156(3) or for issuance of process under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 6. Hence, the petition is disposed with liberty to file a private complaint. 7. If any of the petitioners apply for a copy of the station diary of 18th and 19th February, 2010, we direct the Inspector of Talasari Police Station to issue a certified true copy of the same to the petitioners. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)