AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. APPLICATION NO.66 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.228 OF 2010 Smt. Gurmeet Kaur. ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents And Poonam Jewel Cooperative Housing Society Limited. ... Intervener Mr. A.H. Ponda for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. P.D. Prasad Rao for the Intervener. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for action against police officers particularly respondent 6 for not taking action on her complaint. AJN 2 2. The petitioner has, inter alia, alleged that some persons at the instance of Mr. Shetty, a Minister with the Government of Maharashtra assaulted her brother on 15/2/2007. They punched her and passed obscene comments on her. Instead of taking action on her complaint, the police threatened her. The petitioner has alleged that again on 10/1/2010 when the petitioner was taking walk, the residents of the Society where she resides came to her and started abusing her. They manhandled her and asked her to withdraw her complaint against the police officers. The petitioner again lodged a complaint with the police. Though cognizable offence was disclosed the police did not register the FIR. 3. In this petition, the instant intervention application is filed by Poonam Jewel Cooperative Housing Society Limited. According to the Society, in fact, the petitioner and her family members have indulged in terrorizing the Society and its members by filing false and fictitious complaints against the office bearers. Some instances are AJN 3 narrated in which the petitioner's brothers Manjeet Singh and Sukhbir Singh are said to have assaulted the members of the Society. The intervenor-Society therefore wants to intervene in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the intervenor has reiterated the contentions raised in the application. He submitted that the Society may be permitted to intervene so that correct facts can be brought before the court. 5. Mr. Ponda, learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed this prayer. He submitted that the accused has no locus at this stage. 6. A perusal of the petition shows that the basic grievance of the petitioner in this petition is against the police officers. The present application is filed by the Society and not by any individual member of the Society in his personal capacity. The allegations are made against individual members of the Society. Therefore, the AJN 4 Society cannot be described as an accused. Looking to the background of the case and nature of dispute, we find nothing wrong in granting the application. 7. Our attention is drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC (Cri.) 9. In that case, the High Court had directed that the investigation be initiated against the appellant-institution. The question was whether the institution should be granted an opportunity of hearing prior to the said direction. The Supreme Court observed that the criminal law was directed to be set in motion on the basis of the allegations made in the anonymous petition made in the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned order of the High Court directing enquiry and investigation into the allegations in respect of which not even a complaint or information has been lodged with the police was violative of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court observed that no judicial order can ever be passed by any AJN 5 court without providing an opportunity of hearing to the person likely to be affected by such order and particularly when such order results in drastic consequence of affecting one's own reputation. In our opinion, the facts of the present case are not similar to the facts which were before the Supreme Court. We do not propose to initiate prosecution against anybody. The judgment in Divine Retreat Centre is not applicable to the present case. We have not considered the question whether the accused must be noticed in all cases. We may not be therefore understood to have expressed any opinion that the accused is entitled to notice as we have not considered this question. In the view that we have taken, we permit the applicant to intervene. We direct the petitioner to amend the petition and add the intervener as party respondent. Amendment to be carried out within four weeks i.e. on or before 10/3/2010. Application is disposed of. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]