1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.165 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 169 OF 2010 SUNIL GANESHLALJI SAHU VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. W. Sambre, Public Prosecutor for State Respondent. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : 17th JANUARY 2011. 1. The petitioner claims violation of his fundamental rights on account of wrongful searches conducted at his place in his absence, without search warrant, without registration of offence etc. and barely in order to harass him either based on suspicion or otherwise. He claims enquiry and investigation as well as monetary compensation. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kalwaghe for the petitioner at length and learned APP. 3. The petition has been duly replied and opposed and even the rejoinder has been filed. 4. The petition suffers from serious defect 2 such as :- (a) Suppression of material facts; (b) Conscious and deliberate false statement contained in the petition; (c) Latches and negligence; (d) The petition involves seriously disputed question of facts; 5. These matters which lead to foregoing points are summarized as follows: [i] The petitioner has made a statement in both the writ petitions which reads as follows: “1. The petitioner is a citizen of India by virtue of birth and having domicile in the State of Maharashtra and he is permanently residing at the above mentioned address. That the petitioner is peace loving and law abiding citizen and no criminal cases like theft, robbery, murder, rape etc. are registered against him.” [Quoted from page 2 of the petition paper book] [ii] The statement quoted above is factually incorrect and the respondents have disclosed and listed large number of criminal cases which are pending against the petitioner. [iii] The petitioner has not disputed the fact of filing of many cases against him and has raised the controversy about only few, in the rejoinder, and all that he claims is that the cases are false 3 and/or he is innocent or is falsely involved and does not express remorse for the wrong statement in the petition. [iv] Though the alleged searches and acts of harassment are spread over for duration between September 2009 till February 2010, even a single complaint if any filed by the petitioner with the higher police authorities against erring police personnel is not pleaded and/or placed on record. The petition is vague as to the identity of the officers who have committed searches or wrongfully restrained or arrested etc. These Officers are not even named. (v) The petition contains all disputed questions of fact. 6. On account of the above noted grounds, we are satisfied that we need not entertain this petition. Even otherwise, prima facie, petition seems to be vexatious and is a publicity interest litigation. 7. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. Judge Judge |muley|