AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.156 OF 2010 Arjun Malji Vaijal ... Petitioner Vs. Vijay Bhagwan Singh Chowhan & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.A. Sawant for the petitioner. Mr. A.L. Patki for respondent 1. Mr. Prakash Naik for respondent 2. Ms. U.V. Kejariwal, A.P.P. for the State. ALONG WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.306 OF 2010 Smt. Shalu Arjun Vaijal & Anr. ... Petitioners Vs. Vijay Bhagwan Singh Chowhan & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.A. Sawant for the petitioners. Mr. A.L. Patki for respondent 1. AJN 2 Mr. R. More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order as the facts involved in these two petitions are similar. Writ Petition No.156 of 2010 is filed by Arjun Vaijal and Writ Petition No.306 of 2010 is filed by Shalu Arjun Vaijal and another. Ms. Shalu Vaijal is the wife of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.156 of 2010. In Writ Petition No.156 of 2010 the petitioner has inter alia prayed that departmental inquiry be conducted against respondent 3 and complaints made by the petitioner be investigated under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the said Act”). In Writ Petition No.306 of 2010, it is prayed that respondents 5, 6 and 7 be directed to inquire into the complaint made by the AJN 3 petitioners on 28/7/2009 and the telegram complaint made on 26/7/2009 and an offence be registered against respondents 1, 2 and 3 under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act and also under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting and abusing the petitioners and their family members in filthy language and that the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai be directed to forthwith enquire into the alleged role of respondent 3 in aiding and abetting the illegal act of respondents 1 and 2 in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their land bearing C.T.S. No. 256/3, Film City Road, Dr. Arunkumar Vaidya Marg, Opposite to Satellite Tower, Malad, Mumbai. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length. Admittedly, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.306 of 2010 have filed private complaint in the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali. On 20/1/2010, we had, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directed learned Magistrate to deal with the case in accordance with law AJN 4 expeditiously. We are informed that till date, learned Magistrate has not passed any order. We expect learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders on the complaint expeditiously. Mr. Sawant for the petitioners contended that after filing the private complaint, certain other events had taken place which show police high-handedness. Since a private complaint is already pending, we do not want to express any opinion either way because it is possible that that may influence learned Magistrate. However, it is open to the petitioners' counsel to bring to the notice of learned Magistrate all events that have allegedly taken place after the filing of the private complaint. Mr. Sawant made a serious grievance that the petitioners have made several complaints to the Commissioner of Police, however, he has not looked into them. Learned A.P.P., however, states that one of the complaints was inquired into and respondent 3 has been absolved and the report has been submitted to the Lokayukta. Mr. Sawant states that the petitioners will file a consolidated complaint setting out grievances against the police officers. If such a complaint is filed, the AJN 5 Commissioner of Police shall look into the grievances of the petitioners and if found necessary take suitable action. We, however, make it clear that we have not examined the contentions of the petitioners in this behalf and the Commissioner of Police shall look into the grievances independently and in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have kept the contentions raised by all the parties open. It is pointed out to us that in Writ Petition No. 156 of 2010, a Division Bench presided over by Justice Majmudar has restrained respondent 3 from visiting the disputed site. The Bench has directed that if any complaint is made in connection with the disputed property or regarding the dispute at the site, some other investigating officer of the Dindoshi Police Station shall take cognizance of the same. We are informed by learned A.P.P. that in fact C.R. No.191 of 2009 is now assigned to the Senior Inspector of Police of Dindoshi Police Station who will investigate the same. Needless to say that order dated 15/1/2010 will have to be strictly followed. Investigation will be only conducted by the Senior Inspector of Police of Dindoshi Police Station AJN 6 and not by respondent 3. Order dated 15/1/2010 shall continue to operate. 3. The petitions are disposed of in the aforestated terms. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]