- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 1204 OF 2008 Smt. Hamida Rehaman Lakdawala ) Age 49 years, Occupation – Nil, ) R/o. Flat No. 201, Building No. 9, ) A wing Kapadiya Nagar, C.S.T. Road ) Kurla (West), Mumbai-400 070. ) Petitioner Vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police, ) Thane District, Thane. ) 2. The Senior Police Inspector, ) Shahapur Police Station, ) District Thane. ) 3. The State of Maharashtra ) Respondents Mr. Himangi Pothare, for the petitioner. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the respondents. CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2008. PC 1. The petitioner is a Muslim lady who claims that she married one Raheman Lakdawala in the year 1978. Four daughters and one son are born out of this wedlock. According to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner prepared a false Talaqnama dated 27th March, 2008 and claims to have given customary divorce to the petitioner. The petitioner states that her ex-husband has contracted second marriage. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is owner of certain properties in respect of which the aforesaid ex-husband of the petitioner has created a fake, forged and fabricated document of sale dated 28th March, 2008 showing that the petitioner has sold - 2 - her property to her ex-husband for a consideration of Rs. 9,51,000/- though the market price of the property is about Rs.28 lakhs. When the petitioner became aware of such alleged fraud, the petitioner filed a complaint on 28th April, 2008 with Shahapur Police Station, which was not being registered and/or investigated by the police. Hence, this petition is filed by the petitioner seeking an order, directing the police to register the offence in terms of her written complaint against the persons named by her as accused. This petition has been filed on 9th June, 2008. 3. Pending this petition, certain interim orders were passed by this Court from time to time. Ultimately the police have registered the case against the accused, being C. R. No. 121 of 2008, on 20th June, 2008. Thus, it is clear that only after this Court entertained the petition and issued some interim directions, the police have gone ahead and registered the case. It appears that during the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused on 12th July, 2008 at 8.30 p.m., and produced them before the Magistrate at his house on the next day, which was a Sunday. The Magistrate has passed a curious order, as a result of which this Court in the present Writ Petition passed an order on 21st August, 2008 which need not be reproduced herein, as the same is self- explanatory. 4. Suffice it to say that by the said order of 21st August, 2008 this Court expressed its inability to understand as to how could a Magistrate pass an order that has been so passed by the Magistrate on 12th July, 2008 when the accused who were arrested by the police were produced before him for remand. By the same order, this Court directed the Police Inspector to explain his conduct, by filing an affidavit. - 3 - . The police officer has filed an affidavit, that need not be considered by us at this stage in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place which are narrated hereunder. 5. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ganesh Puri division has conducted an inquiry into the entire episode as to the conduct of the concerned police in dealing with this case. A self-explanatory report prepared by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer dated 26th September, 2008 has been submitted to the Superintendent of Police Thane (Rural) and a copy thereof is placed by the learned APP on record of this case. Thus, it appears that steps are being taken by the department itself in this regard. 6. In as much as the curious conduct of the Magistrate is concerned, we are of the view that an appropriate opportunity needs to be given to the concerned Magistrate to explain his conduct as well, before we comment upon the same, one way or the other. 7. In view of the aforesaid developments that have taken place, pending the petition, in our view, the petition no longer survives in as much as the petitioner is concerned. This is because the claim/relief sought for by the present petition already stands satisfied, in as much as the petition was filed, seeking an order directing only registration of the FIR on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner and taking its cognizance by the police, which has already been done. 8. The present petition, is therefore, disposed of, with the following directions, which will meet the ends of justice. (i) The Superintendent of Police Thane (Rural) is directed to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, against the concerned police - 4 - officer after considering the report submitted by the Special Divisional Police Officer, Ganesh Puri division, dated 6th September, 2008. The action taken report on affidavit shall be submitted by the Superintendent of Police Thane, (Rural) in this Court within two months from today. (ii) The Registrar (General) is directed to call explanation as to the issuance of order dated 13th July, 2008 by the concerned in-charge Judicial Magistrate, Murbad, in the present case more so considering the order of the Court dated 21st August, 2008. The notice calling for explanation along with the reply be placed before learned Chief Justice for further consideration. Sd/- Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.] [ F. I. REBELLO, J.]