1 cri-wp-282-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 282 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 214 OF 2011 Suresh M. Gehi & ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Milind Borkar for petitioner nos.1 to 5. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for State. Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/by Mr. S.J. Khera for respondent no.14. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. August 04, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Borkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 to 5. Mr. Gadkari, the learned APP for the State of Maharashtra. 2 cri-wp-282-11.doc 2. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution prays for the following reliefs:- (a) The Commissioner of Police, either through the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) or through the Dy. Commissioner of Police (as mentioned as respondents) may devise preventive measures against Mr. Anil Menghraj Gehi and those conniving with him, so as to prevent him from threatening the petitioners and the family members. Such preventive measures should be strict and the police must provide security to the petitioners, in accordance with law. (b) The Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes) must investigate into the averments made by the petitioners in this case and also seek more assistance from the petitioners and others in respect of property amassed by Anil Gehi using the links with Dawood Ibrahim gang members and their involvement in threatening the petitioners and their family members. These properties, or their sale proceeds, for which there is reason to believe were amassed with the help of 3 cri-wp-282-11.doc underworld activities action may be seized or dealt in accordance with law. The Jt. CP Crime and other respondents should also consider the application of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act against the said Anil Gehi and others conniving with him. (c) The incidence against the petitioners and the family members including FIR No. 314 of 1990, 12/9/1990 (Khar Police Station), 23 of 1990 (Shivaji Park Police Station) and 347 of 2010 (Worli Police Station) and other cases pointed out at in Exhibit A must be thoroughly investigated even if chargesheet or report is filed further investigation should continue and full efforts should be put in by police to nab these unknown people suspected to be appointed by Anil Gehi and action be taken in accordance with law.” 3. So far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the petitioners’ seek a writ against the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to devise preventive measures against Mr. Anil Menghraj Gehi and those conniving with him so as to prevent him from threatening the petitioners and their family 4 cri-wp-282-11.doc members and such preventive measures should be strict and police must provide security to the petitioners in accordance with law. 4. As per prayer clause (b), it is the contention of the petitioners that the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), must investigate into the averments made by the petitioners in this case and also seek more assistance from the petitioners and others in respect of property amassed by Anil Gehi using the links with Dawood Ibrahim gang members and their involvement in threatening the petitioners and their family members. It is further urged that the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes) and other respondents should consider the application of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 against the said Anil Gehi and others. As per prayer clause (c), the complaint registered in terms of FIR No. 314 of 1990 (with Khar Police Station), FIR No. 23 of 2010 (with Shivaji Park Police Station) and FIR No. 347 of 2010 (with Worli Police Station) must be thoroughly investigated and even if the charge- sheet or final report is filed, further investigation should continue. 5. So far as the police protection is concerned, it is for the 5 cri-wp-282-11.doc petitioners to apply to the competent authority as per the prevailing Rules. If Mr. Anil Gehi and those conniving with him are engaging in any offences or any acts amounting to offences punishable under IPC or under any Special Act, at the first instance the petitioners will have to file the complaint and if it is not registered, they have the remedy to file a private complaint before the court of competent criminal jurisdiction and in this case one such FIR has been registered in the year 1990 and two other FIRs have been registered in the year 2010. If on completion of the investigation charge-sheets or final reports have been submitted to the competent court, the petitioners’ prayer for further investigation will have to be addressed before the trial court at the first instance, depending upon the stage of the complaint. So far as the prayer to invoke the provisions of MCOC Act 1999 against Mr. Anil Gehi and his associates is concerned, the mere allegations of the petitioners are not enough and it is for the competent authority to consider the complaint of the petitioners to pass appropriate orders under Section 23 of the said Act. Notwithstanding the said legal position, there is no prima facie material place before us to make out a case for invoking the MCOC Act. It must also be noted that against a 6 cri-wp-282-11.doc private individual a writ of mandamus cannot go in terms of a refraining order. We have no doubt that the petition has been filed on frivolous grounds and it must fail at the threshold. 6. Hence the petition is rejected summarily. 7. Criminal Application No. 214 of 2011 does not survive and the same stands disposed as such. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)