: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1601 OF 2009 Simpreet Singh .. Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ........ Mrs. Anjali Iyer for petitioner. Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State. ........ CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. Dated : 2nd December, 2009. P.C. : 1. We have heard Mrs. Iyer, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Bhosale, the learned APP appears for the respondents. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the substantial reliefs prayed for read as under. (a) To issue ‘Writ of Mandamus’ or a ‘Writ in the nature of Mandamus’ or any other appropriate ‘Writ, direction or order, directing the Respondent No.2 or superior police authority to immediately initiate statutory action prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure for compliance of the order dated 26.03.2009 to submit ‘Report’ before the Ld. Magistrate, as directed by the Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate’s 32nd Court at Bandra, Mumbai on : 2 : Application filed by this Petitioner u/sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on date 26/03/2009, within a reasonable time period preferably within one week. (b) To issue ‘Writ of Mandamus’ or a ‘Writ in the nature of Mandamus’ or any other appropriate ‘Writ’, direction or order, directing the Respondent No.2 or superior police authority to immediately provide copy of the FIR to the petitioner as prescribed under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C.” 3. It appears that on 26.3.2009 the petitioner, who claims himself to be a social activist, along with some others was produced before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court at Bandra in CR No.58 of 2009 he alleges that the Police officers had ill-treated the arrested persons. In para 2 of the application submitted by the petitioner before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it is stated that suddenly and without saying anything, the policemen standing there started lathi charge on the slum dwellers as per the directions given by the police officers present and in the said lathi charge, many people includinig some children got injured. It is further alleged that male policeman beat the women slum dwellers and activists very badly, caught them by their hair, kicked them, tore away their clothes and threw them inside the police vans present there. It is further stated that when the arrested persons were called to BKC Police station, the women were made to sit on the floor just outside the toilet without providing them any water and food and : 3 : without any medicines to the injured men and women. They were informed by Smt. Harne that they were under arrest and, therefore, the petitioner requested the police officer to inform the family members but no such information was given. Thus the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal were violated. 4. On this application, the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order calling for report from the concerned Police station. Surprisingly, the petition has been filed interpreting this as an order passed u/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. when the petitioner and others were presented before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the arrested persons. The Court was aware that while under arrest, the applicant’s allegations were that they were ill-treated and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu (Supra) were violated. Before passing any further order so as to deal with the application filed by the petitioner and others, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate sought a report from the Police station on the allegations made and the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate calling for report cannot be interpreted as an order passed u/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Ms. Iyer has invited our attention to Section 2 (r) of Cr.P.C. and as : 4 : per the same, the police report means the report forwarded by the police officer to the Magistrate u/s. 172(2) of Cr.P.C. In the order dated 26.3.2009, the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has not called for Police report and he has simply said to call for report from the concerned Police station. From the said order it is clear that the Magistrate did not intended to call for a Police reported as contemplated u/s. 176(2) of Cr.P.C. If the petitioner is of the opinion that the Police excesses as alleged are offences or they are in breach of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu’s case, nothing would prevent the petitioner from initiating a separate private complaint before the concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 5. In the affidavit filed by Smt. Vaibhavi Harne, Police Inspector from Kherwadi Police station Bandra (E), Mumbai, it has been stated that on 26.3.2009 in all 203 delegates for remand as well as filing the chargesheet before the 31st Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra were present before the Court and they were served with the copies of chargesheet. It has been pointed out that at the time of remand, the petitioner’s advocate filed an application claiming to be a cross-complaint. However we do not agree with the statement made in the affidavit that the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the order dated 26.3.2009. : 5 : 6. It is necessary for the police to file a report regarding the allegations made against the officers and as set out in the application submitted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of remand. We direct that the said report, if it has not yet been submitted, shall be submitted by the incharge of Kherwadi Police station within 2 weeks from today before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in compliance with his order dated 26.3.2009. Undoubtedly, the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate would deal with the application submitted by the petitioner as per law, after the report is filed. 7. Save and except the directions given to the Kherwadi Police station, this petition stands disposed. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]