1 31811 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 318 OF 2011 Vilas Gadadhar Deshpande & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The State of Gujarat & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/by Mr. Hoshang S. Tafti for the Petitioners Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P., for the State CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 1ST MARCH, 2011 P.C.:- The petition takes exception to the show-cause notice issued by the Senior Police Inspector of Police of Lashkar Police Station, Pune, dated 29th January, 2011. The said notice has been issued in compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 7th November, 2009 in Criminal Revision Application No. 75 of 2000. So long as the said order operates, the police officer would be obliged to comply with the order of this Court dated 7th November, 2009. In that sense, no fault can be found with the 2 31811 issuance of the impugned notice by the Senior Police Inspector of Police of Lashkar Police Station. 2. The counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the police officer has acted in a high-handed manner. In that, in spite of the order of status quo passed on 2nd February, 2011, the police officer dispossessed the petitioners from the disputed premises, knowing full well that the petitioners have right, title and interest therein. Insofar as the order of status quo passed by us on 2nd February, 2011 is concerned, that order was passed at mentioning stage, upon production of the papers after the lunch break. We place on record that our attention was not invited to the order dated 7th November, 2009 when the matter was mentioned before us. Besides, the learned A.P.P. has clarified the position on 11th February, 2011 that the order of status quo was served on the police officer only at 6.46 p.m. on 2nd February, 2011, whereas, without the knowledge of such order having been passed, he took over possession of the property in furtherance of the impugned show-cause notice between 5.00 p.m. to 5.45 p.m. 3. It is not necessary for us to now enter into the controversy raised by the petitioners. Suffice it to observe that the police officer 3 31811 cannot be blamed for taking over possession of the disputed property to comply with the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 7th November, 2009. The fact that the petitioners were not party to Criminal Revision Application No. 75 of 2000, in which the said order was passed, does not take the matter any further. The petitioners would be free to take recourse to such remedy as may be permissible in law. 4. As aforesaid, so long as the order dated 7th November, 2009 operated, the Senior Police Inspector was obliged to give effect to the said order. Accordingly, the impugned show-cause notice cannot be quashed, even though the petitioners were not parties to the Criminal Revision Application. 5. The other argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been dispossessed and Ganesh Sopanrao Dake has been inducted in the disputed premises by the Senior Police Inspector. The learned A.P.P., however, has countered this argument on instructions of the Senior Police Inspector, who is present in Court. As per the record of handing over and taking over possession, the Senior Police Inspector has handed over possession of the disputed premises to Mrs. Fulwanti (Phoolvanti) Jawaharlal Lodha, who is the legal heir of the 4 31811 original complainant. Even this grievance of the petitioners, therefore, does not merit any interference. 6. The counsel for the petitioners would then submit that, in that case, the person in occupation of the disputed premises pursuant to handing over possession thereof by the Senior Police Inspector be ordered to maintain status quo as of today with regard to the said premises so as to enable the petitioners to take recourse to other appropriate remedy as may be permissible by law. The said Mrs. Fulwanti (Phoolvanti) Jawaharlal Lodha, however, is not appearing before us. Behind her back, it may not be possible for us to accede to the request of the petitioners, as it may entail in further complications. The petitioners, if so advised, are free to immediately resort to other appropriate proceedings, which will proceed on their own merits, in accordance with law. 7. Petition disposed of accordingly. A.R. JOSHI, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.