1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Criminal Writ Petition No.2130 of 2008 Dharmaraj Ramnarayan Singh @ Bacchi Singh Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Counsel with Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI,JJ. September 18, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Sakhare, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioner. Mr.Konde-Deshmukh, the learned APP appears for the respondents – State authorities. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a host of reliefs and Mr.Sakhare, the 2 learned Senior Counsel in his oral arguments pressed for the following prayers: (b) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ directing the Respondent No.1 to immediately and forthwith place before this Hon’ble Court for further necessary directions and legal action the report made by the Respondent No.1 pursuant to investigations and enquiries made by the Respondent No.1 into the Petitioner’s application / letter dated 18.2.2008 as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court in its earlier order dated 11.2.2008 in Cri. Writ Petition No.2431 of 2007; (c) For a writ or an order in the nature of a writ directing the Respondent No.2 to immediately and forthwith place before this Hon’ble Court for further necessary directions and legal action the report made by the Respondent No.2 pursuant to investigations and enquiries made by the Respondent No.2 into the letter dated 17.1.2008 addressed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to the Respondent No.2 in relation to Prime Minister’s office letter dated 20.12.2007 addressed to the Ministry of Home Affairs with reference to the grievances of the petitioner.” 3 2. It appears that the petitioner had approached this Court in the earlier round in Criminal Writ Petition No.2431 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 11.2.2008, by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed complaint to the Commissioner of Police against any of the police officers regarding his grievance that while in their custody he was ill- treated or there was any other grievance. Consequently on 18.2.2008 he submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai requesting for legal action against the respondent nos.5 and 6 i.e. Shri Ashok Khedkar and Shri Praful Shantaram Phadke. Vide our order dated 24/7/2009 we had directed that the complaint dated 18/2/2008 filed by the petitioner be examined by the Commissioner of Police in the light of the statement made before us that respondent nos.5 and 6 were the officers against whom he had a grievance. Accordingly Shri D. Sivanandan, Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai has filed his affidavit. It has been stated that Shri Amar Jadhav, Deputy Commissioner of Police enquired into the complaint submitted by the petitioner and also while carrying out the said enquiry examined the orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai as and when the petitioner was produced 4 for remand before the said Court. The enquiry revealed that the allegations made by the petitioner in his complaint dated 18/2/2008 were found to be baseless and false. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner had approached the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission and his complaint was registered as Case No.4784/07-08/398. The Hon’ble Chairperson of the State Human Rights Commission by his order dated 19/11/2008 held that there was no substance in the complaint filed by the petitioner. It was contended by the petitioner before the Human Rights commission that he had apprehensions as per which he was likely to be killed directly or indirectly in a false encounter or he might be booked in a false case under the MCOC or NDPS Acts. The Commission, it appears, had called for a report and the same was submitted and on the basis of the said report the petitioner’s complaint came to be dismissed. 3. So far as the petitioner’s prayer for police protection for himself and his family members is concerned, it has been pointed out by the Police Commissioner that in the alleged attempt made on the life of the petitioner on 18/9/2008 C.R.No. 374 of 2008 was registered with the DN Nagar Police Station for 5 the offences punishable under Sections 307, 387, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC as well as under Sections3, 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Investigation of the said C.R. was transferred to the DCB, CID, Unit IX on 16/1/2009 and four accused came to be arrested. It was revealed that the said accused persons are members of the Chota Rajan gang. We have been informed that charge-sheet has been filed under the MCOC Act, well within the time, before the competent Court. 4. It is further pointed out that the complainant’s antecedents are questionable and in all six criminal cases have been registered against him since 1991. As per the GR dated 3rd January 2000 issued by the Government of Maharashtra through its Home Department, there is no need to give police protection to a person having criminal background and, therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner for police protection on 20/9/2008 cannot be considered. 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Police Commissioner has applied his mind to the report submitted by the DCP into the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 18/2/2008 and no further action is required to be taken on the said complaint. 6 The prayer for police protection has been rightly turned down. Hence this petition must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN S. DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)