1 wp 2909-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2909 OF 2010 Suresh Barku Dumada ...Petitioner vs. Rajendra Pandurang Mulik & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.K.H. Holambe Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.M.K. Kocharekar for Respondent No.1. Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JUNE 28, 2011 P.C. :- 1 We have heard Mr.Holambe Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2 The petitioner is employed as Police Constable with Buckle no.1246 and he is also a Schedule Tribe. On 23rd July, 2010 around 4 p.m., he filed a complaint about the incident that had taken place at about 12.30 p.m. in the chamber of respondent no.1. It appears that respondent no.1 had called the petitioner with the record of 2 wp 2909-2010 investigation and it is alleged that the respondent no.1 abused him on his caste. Therefore, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directions to register a complaint against respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A copy of the petitioner’s complaint has been placed before us by the learned APP. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palghar Sub-Division, Palghar, District Thane, has filed affidavit-in-reply and stated that the petitioner’s complaint dated 23rd July, 2010 and 27th July, 2010 were inquired into by the said officer and statements of four witnesses were also recorded. Those four witnesses are Vishal Jadhav, Mandar Dalvi, Balu Gharat, Mohan Pawar. None of these witnesses supported the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 had abused him in his chamber at about 12.30 3 wp 2909-2010 p.m. on 23rd July, 2010. The report of the said inquiry which was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural) on 13th September, 2010 is also annexed to the affidavit-in-reply and we have perused the same. 4 Mr.Holambe Patil invited our attention to the investigation report and more particularly, the statement recorded of witness Shri Prakash Dattatray Baswant. First of all this Mr.Baswant was not present in the chamber of respondent no.1 when he allegedly shouted at the petitioner and all that this witness stated is that he saw the petitioner coming out of the said cabin with tears in his eyes. This Prakash Baswant has only heard the story given by the petitioner after he came out of the chamber of respondent no.1. 5 Notwithstanding the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on the complaint 4 wp 2909-2010 submitted by the petitioner, the fact remains that as per his own complaint, the alleged incident has taken place in the chamber of respondent no.1 and not in the public view. The four police constables, who were present in the chamber of respondent no.1 at the time of alleged incident, had categorically stated that the respondent no.1 did not abuse the petitioner and on the contrary, he was being questioned on the lapses in the investigation he was carrying out and the dereliction of duty. 6 Mr.Holambe Patil then submitted that the petitioner has been suspended and if that be so, his remedy would be somewhere else against the said suspension order and it cannot be gone into in this petition. 7 Hence, the petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)