1 3 wp.1002.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2010 Mrs. Shaila Rajendra Lad. ... Petitioner Vs. The Senior Police Inspector and ors. ... Respondents ----- Mrs. Shaila Rajendra Lad – Petitioner, present in-person. Mr. S.V.Marwadi, advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 18 th October, 2010. P.C. 1 The principal grievance in this petition is about inaction of the local police in relation to complaint registered as C.R. 978 and 979 of 2008 in respect of the incident dated 24 th August, 2008. Considering the allegations in the said complaint, it was registered as NC complaint. The allegations were in respect of the act of commission and omission of Respondent No.3. Since the complaint disclosed non-cognizable offence, the question of police officials investigating into the said matter would not arise. In our opinion, no direction can be issued to the police official in exercise of writ jurisdiction to inquire into the said complaint 2 3 wp.1002.10 against Respondent No.3. We, however, express no opinion in respect of the allegations made in the said complaint. It will be open to the Petitioner to pursue such other remedy as may be permissible in law. The apprehension of the Petitioner about danger to her life and property including of the family members has been inquired into by the ACP, Tardeo Division, Mumbai, who has submitted his report dated 15 th October, 2010. In our opinion, considering the outcome of the inquiry undertaken by the ACP, the apprehension of the Petitioner to say the least is ill-advised. In our opinion, this petition is devoid of merits. The same is disposed of accordingly. 2 We wish to place on record that Mr.Marwadi, who was appointed by us to appear as Amicus Curiae to espouse the cause of the Petitioner, at the outset, expressed his reservation to continue in the proceedings on the ground that the Petitioner and her sister as well as mother have conveyed to him that he should not appear in the matter. Since we have appointed Mr.Marwadi as Amicus Curiae, merely because the Petitioner does not want him to appear in the matter, will make no difference. The Petitioner including her sister and mother were present in Court and when they were informed about the possible outcome of the petition, all of them started misbehaving in Court. They went to the extent of making allegations not only against the Advocates but even against the sitting judges of this Court. Even so, to observe sobriety we do not wish to take recourse to contempt action though the conduct and 3 3 wp.1002.10 behaviour of the Petitioner, her sister as well as mother in the Court was gross and objectionable. [ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]