1wp-20-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.20 of 2010 Smt Madhavi W/o Sashikant Naik vs. State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr A. M. Sarogi, for the Petitioner. Mrs A.S.Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. Mr Prakash N. Jadhav, P.I. (Adm) Borivali Police Station. CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 1ST APRIL, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.,for the State. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:- “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and direction directing some fit and proper person including a retired judicial officer to hold L 2wp-20-10 appropriate enquiry and investigation against the concerned police officers of Borivali Police Station named in the Petition for the offence and misuse of the powers committed by them and subject to outcome of such enquiry, appropriate legal steps be taken against them.” 3. Such a prayer was made in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, dated 16.11.2009. By this order, the petitioner was allowed to approach the Commissioner of Police and lodge a complaint against whosoever have acted in connivance with the antisocial elements and dispossessed the petitioner from her residential flat. Accordingly, the petitioner lodged the complaint to the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner of Police issued directions to P.I. Jadhav to conduct an inquiry and submit his report. Learned A.P.P.,on instructions, submits that P.I. Jadhav has conducted an inquiry and forwarded his report to the Commissioner of Police on 24.3.2010. Mr Sarogi, learned counsel for the petitioner made a grievance that during inquiry, the Inquiry Officer did not even deem it necessary to call the petitioner and record her statement, which submission of learned counsel has been disputed by the learned A.P.P. and she has produced before the Court a statement of the petitioner recorded during the inquiry. Mr Sarogi verified the signature on the statement recorded by the Inquiry Officer with her signature on the Vakalatnama and admitted that the signature on the statement is of the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the inquiry as directed by this Court vide order dated L 3wp-20-10 16.11.2009 has been conducted and we hope and trust that the Commissioner of Police will dealt with the report in accordance with law. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J) (D.B. BHOSALE,J) L