1 wp2414.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2414 of 2010 Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Mihir Gheewala-advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Gadkari-APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 25, 2010. P.C. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned APP. The first relief claimed in this Petition is to issue directions to the Respondents to call for record in relation to CR No. 142 of Nagpada Police Station. Insofar as this relief is concerned, since the CR No. 142/2010 has been quashed by this Court in terms of order dated 9th June, 2010 in Cr. Writ Petition No. 1436/2010, it is not possible to entertain the same. The argument of the Petitioner is that the 2 wp2414.10 said FIR has been quashed at the instance of third party. It does not address the grievance of the Petitioner regarding the criminal trespass committed on the property which was in possession of the Petitioner. The Petitioner made written complaint to the concerned police station which is at pages 130 M to 130 O. That complaint, however, does not specifically refer to the grievance of criminal trespass. But the substance of that complaint is that two watchmen who were employed by the Petitioner to guard the property have been abducted. That grievance precisely was the subject matter of the C.R. No. 142/10. As aforesaid that FIR has already been quashed by this Court on 9th June, 2010. That decision would bind not only the Petitioner but also this Court till it is over turned by the Superior Court. The fact that the order is passed by the Single Judge makes no difference to that legal position. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner then invited our attention to the statement of the Petitioner at page-60. This statement has been recorded after the written complaint made by the Petitioner which is referred to earlier at pages 130 M – 130 O. With reference to this statement local police officials made enquiry and have recorded opinion, which can be noticed from police station diary dated 24th April, 2010 at pages 130 Q to 130 S. It is obvious that there is long standing dispute between the parties with regard to property in question. The enquiry 3 wp2414.10 officer, therefore, has noted that the dispute is essentially in the nature of civil dispute. Moreso, considering the fact that the person who was supposed to be abducted, himself stated immediately on 24th April, 2010 itself that he was not so abducted, as is noticed from the documents on record of the police official. Therefore, the opinion formed by the enquiry officer cannot be faulted. Thus, non-registration of FIR on the basis of the said statement made by the Petitioner in the fact situation of the present case does not take the matter any further. 3. That takes us to the other reliefs prayed in the Writ Petition. Insofar as prayer clause (b) is concerned, it is prayed that Respondents in particular Nagpada Police Station be directed to remove encroachers from the Madanpura property and hand over the peaceful possession thereof to the Petitioner and restore the status quo ante to the Petitioner prior to 23rd April, 2010. We fail to understand how this relief can be entertained in the form of Writ Petition instituted on the criminal side of this Court. The Petitioner is free to pursue such other remedy as may be permissible in law for the relief as prayed therein. 4. Insofar as the relief in terms of prayer clause (c) is concerned, is to issue direction to CBI to register FIR of the Petitioner’s statement recorded between the night of 23rd April, 2010 and 24th April, 2010 and investigate the same. As 4 wp2414.10 aforesaid, it is open to the Petitioner to take recourse to such other remedy as may be permissible by law. We are not impressed by the grievance of the Petitioner that there is failure on the part of the local police to register offence as is sought to be asserted by the present Petition. The Petitioner is free to institute proceedings including by instituting the private complaint, if so advised. We express no final opinion on the merits of the controversy. 5. Suffice it to observe that the reliefs as prayed in this Petition cannot be countenanced. It is also prayed by way of prayer clause (e) for issuance of direction to Respondents in particular Nagpada Police Station to forthwith remove all persons currently in illegal possession of the property in question, which prayer is similar to relief claimed in prayer clause (b) with which we have already dealt with in the earlier part of this order. Petitioner further prays to issue direction to the Nagpada Police Station to post police personnel to guard the property in question and to ensure that no untoward incident is repeated. As aforesaid, it is open to the Petitioner to take recourse to such other remedy as may be permissible by law. The reliefs in this Petition in our opinion cannot be countenanced. 5 wp2414.10 6. This Petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse to remedies as may be permissible in law. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)