1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.278 OF 2010 1. Shaikh Shabbir Shaikh Ahmed, Age-60 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Loni, Tq.Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Fattu Shabbir Patel, Age-28 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o. as above. 3. Rabbani Shabbir Patel, Age-25 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o. as above. 4. Sugrabee Shabbir Patel, Age-55 years, occu-Agriculturist, R/o. as above. 5. Shaikh Abbas Shaikh Osman, Age-51 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Lembe Jalgaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 6. Shaikh Isaq Shaik Osman, Age-45 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o. as above. 7. Sayad Mohammad Sayad Osman, Age-40 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o. as above. 8. Shaikh Samad Shaikh Osman, Age-36 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o. as above. 2 9. Hajarabee Shaikh Osman, Age-31 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o. as above. 10. Shaikh Shabbana Shaikh Rabbani, Age-25 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Loni, Tq.Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad 3. The Superintendent of Police, (Rural) Aurangabad. 4. The Inspector, M.I.D.C. Police Station, Walunj, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad 5. Mehmood S/o.Ahmed Patel, Age-51 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Loni, Tq.Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.V.M.Humbe, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.D.S.Manorkar, learned counsel for respondent no.5. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/09/2010 3 ORAL ORDER : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, by which the petitioners pray for awarding compensation to each of the petitioners in connection with their illegal detention and also pray for directing the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners on 15/12/2009. The petitioners further pray for directing respondents no.1 to 4 to file a complaint against respondent no.5 in connection with the false complaint which was filed by him before the J.M.F.C. Gangapur. 2. According to the petitioners, they came to be arrested/illegally detained by the Police Officers on 01/07/2004 pursuant to the complaint lodged by respondent no.5. The petitioners alleged that at Exh.A, the respondent no.5 had filed a private complaint before the J.M.F.C. at Gangapur and pursuant thereto, the petitioners came to be arrested on 01/07/2004 and were detained illegally in police lock up for the period of 7 days. The petitioners further alleged that on 02/09/2004 also the petitioners came to be arrested and detained for a period of 4 days. The petitioners thus claimed compensation for their illegal detention for 11 days by the police officers. Curiously, the Police Officer who is alleged to have either arrested or detained them in the police station, is not joined as a respondent to the petition. 3. Be that as it may, perusal of Exh.A reveals that the private complaint came to be filed in the year 2005 and order came to be 4 passed by the Magistrate directing inquiry u/s. 156(3) of The Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the notice issued by us, respondents no.1 to 4 have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it transpired that the respondents have submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, investigation came to be conducted by the respondents and since no evidence was found against the present petitioners, a final summary came to be submitted, which was accepted by the Trial Court. It also appears that the respondents, at para no.7, have denied to have arrested the petitioners or detained them in custody and have also denied to have applied third degree methods to the petitioners. 4. This petition therefore raises disputed question on facts. Apart from that, there is no material at all to even prima-facie establish that the petitioners had been illegally detained by the police officers pursuant to any complaint lodged by respondent no.5. The petitioners, therefore, according to us are not entitled to claim any compensation for their so called illegal detention. There is no merit in the petition so far as prayer clause 'C' to the petition is concerned. By prayer clause 'D' to the petition, the petitioners have prayed for directing the respondents to decide their representation dated 15/12/2009. In the said representation, the petitioners have claimed compensation for their illegal arrest/detention. In the light of the findings recorded by us that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation as there is no evidence of their illegal detention, according to us, it is not necessary to issue a writ directing the 5 respondents to decide the representation. By prayer clause 'E' to the petition, the petitioners have prayed for directing respondents no.1 to 4 to file a complaint against respondent no.4 for having lodged a false case, according to us, the aforesaid relief is not maintainable. The petitioners may resort to the alternate remedies if available to them in Law. 5. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition is therefore summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.w.p.278-10