1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.464 OF 2011 Ramrao s/o Januji Nawalkar, aged about 52 years, occupation : Cultivator, r/o Sindkhed (Moreshwar), Taluq Barshitakli, District Akola. ... Petitioner - Versus - 1) The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2) The Superintendent of Police, Akola, District : Akola. 3) The Police Station Officer, Police Station, Barshitakli, District Akola. … Respondents ----------------- Shri T.U. Tathod, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. ---------------- 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) : Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 6/8/2011 passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner seeking Police protection. 3) It appears that the petitioner had applied for grant of Police protection apprehending danger to his life as well as obstruction on the part of persons, who were named in the application. The Superintendent of 3 Police, by the impugned order, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there was no live dispute between the petitioner and the persons, who were likely to threaten and obstruct the petitioner. 4) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to us that the petitioner had submitted an application on 22/6/2011, which was the first application and thereafter other applications came to be submitted on 7/7/2011 and 8/7/2011. The learned Counsel for the petitioner now states, on instructions, that pursuant to the aforesaid applications/complaints, offences have been registered against the persons likely to obstruct the petitioner under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code by Barshitakli Police Station. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further urges that the aforesaid fact, i.e. registration of the crime could not be referred to in the applications since the offences have been registered subsequent to filing of the 4 applications. 5) According to us, in the light of the registration of the offences, a live dispute certainly is pending between the petitioner and the persons, whom the petitioner apprehends are likely to obstruct him. The Superintendent of Police, however, has not considered the aforesaid pending crime as the said crime was not referred to by the petitioner in his applications. According to us, in the light of the aforesaid events, which have occurred subsequent to filing of the applications by the petitioner, the request of the petitioner needs to be considered by the respondent Superintendent of Police afresh. 6) Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for a decision afresh in accordance with law. We permit the petitioner to file either an additional application 5 disclosing the fact of registration of the offences or an application afresh disclosing the registration of the offences. This be done by the petitioner within one week from today. We further direct the respondent no.2 to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of filing of the application. 7) Rule is thus made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. 8) Copy of this judgment, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar, be given to the learned Counsel for the parties. JUDGE JUDGE khj