1 cri-wp-639-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 639 OF 2011 Shri Ravindra Somnath Latnekar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr. Ravindra Latnekar, petitioner, party-in-person present. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State. Mr. Vivek Salunke for respondent nos.5 to 7. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 15, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the petitioner, party-in-person. Ms. Mhatre, the learned APP appears for the State. 2. The petitioner had approached this court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2429 of 2010 which came to be dismissed for non prosecution. He has also filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 3459 of 2010 2 cri-wp-639-11.doc which came to be disposed as withdrawn. 3. In this third round, the petitioner prays for quashing of the NC Complaint registered as NC No. 831 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC with Lonikalbhor Police Station, Pune District. 4. Undoubtedly, if the said complaint has to be investigated, the requirements under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. are required to be followed, namely, the permission of the Magistrate concerned. As of now we do not find any material to entertain this petition. 5. The petitioner then submitted that he was detained/arrested for 24 hours and for his release bribe was demanded. If that be so, there is nothing on record that the petitioner addressed any complaint to the Senior Police Officers regarding the demand of bribe by any police officer and he was illegally arrested. Even that representation has also not been made to the concerned DCP or the District Superintendent of Police (Rural). 3 cri-wp-639-11.doc 6. It appears that respondent no.5 is the brother of the petitioner and respondent no.6 is his mother. Respondent No.7 is the wife of respondent no.5. Respondent no.4 is alleged to be a tenant of respondent no.6 and he has filed the complaint dated 1/9/2010 which has been registered as an NC. 7. No case has been made out to show our indulgence in this petition. 8. Hence, the petition is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)