- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.267 OF 2002 1. Tukaram Rajaram Mali, Age 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o At Post Jaitane, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule 2. Parashram Dharma Mali, Age 50 years, Occ. Agri., R/o At Post Jaitane, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Superintendent of Police, Dhule, District Dhule. 3. Shri S.K. Valvi, Age major, Occ. Police Sub Inspector, Nijampur Police Station, Nijampur, Taluka sakri, District Dhule. 4. Shri K.K. Khan. Age major, Occ. PSO/ SSI, Nijampur Police Station, Nijampur, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. 5. Shri Prakash Trimbak Patil, Age major, Occ. Police Constable, UPS/ 1141, Nijampur Police Station, Nijampur, Taluka Sakri District Dhule. 6. Shri Yuvraj Vedu Bagul, Age major, Occ. Police Constable - 2 - UPC/237, Nijampur Police Station, Nijampur, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. 7. Shri Yuvraj Ravan Patil, Age major, Occ. Police Constable UPC/609, Nijampur Police Station, Nijampur, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. 8. Shri Bhaidas Shriram Nikam, Age major, Occ. Police Head Constable UPC/193, Nijampur Police Station, Nijampur, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri A.B. Girase, Advocate for the petitioners Shri S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondents ----- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 29th January, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to enquire against respondents 3 to 8 for illegal and unlawful detention and the atrocities committed on the petitioners. The petitioners also pray for directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- each to the petitioners for their illegal and unlawful detention. 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners came to be - 3 - arrested in the morning of 23.6.2002 and were produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate on 24.6.2002. On the petitioners furnishing the requisite bonds, the petitioners came to be released. According to the petitioners, while they were in the custody of the police officers, they were man-handled, abused and assaulted by the police officers. Not only this, even the wife of the petitioner No. 1 when she had come to the Police Station, was abused and threatened. The petitioners, therefore, pray for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in- reply it is stated that the petitioners were arrested and necessary compliance of the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610) was done. It is further stated that an arrest panchanama had been drawn and the relatives of the petitioners has been informed about their arrest. It is further stated that the petitioners were produced for medical examination on the same day and the respondents have annexed the certificates along with the affidavit-in-reply. 4. The petitioners have filed an affidavit in rejoinder, in which the petitioners have annexed a communication addressed by the Medical Officer, dated 28.9.2002, addressed to the learned Judges of this Court. In the said communication, it is alleged that the Medical Officer has stated that as 23.6.2002 was a Sunday, the Out Patient Department was closed and in good faith, he had issued the certificate without examining the accused. In the - 4 - affidavit, it is also stated that the relatives of the petitioners were not informed. 5. Shri Girase, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that the entire record in the present case appears to have been fabricated by the respondents after the filing of the present petition and this is borne out by the communication addressed by the Medical Officer. It is stated that the relatives of the petitioner were not informed about the arrest of the petitioners and consequently, there is violation of the directives issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu’s case (supra). Shri Kaldate, learned A.P.P. has urged before us that the respondents, while effecting the arrest, have complied with the directives of the Supreme Court and such disputed questions as to whether the petitioners were produced before the Medical Officer and whether the report of the Medical Officer is a false report cannot be decided in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. We do not comprehend as to how the Medical Officer claims to have addressed a communication to this Court. Apparently no notice has been issued to the Medical Officer nor was any information solicited by this Court. The Medical Officer was not called upon to submit any explanation. Be that as it may, the Medical Officer having issued the certificate now has turned round to say that he had not examined the petitioners but had issued certificate as per the request of the police officers. Such disputed questions cannot be decided in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. No affidavit of the Medical Officer has been filed - 5 - before us. 7. The respondents have annexed copy of the documents which show that the petitioners were arrested and their relatives were informed. Arrest panchanama has also been produced on record as also the medical certificate. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, priam facie the material clearly establishes the compliance of the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu’s case (supra). In that light of the matter, according to us, there is no merit in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.]