1 2753.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2753 OF 2010 Udaysinh Vijaysinh Rathod ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.R.S.Apte with Mr.A.R.Gole for Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, A.P.P. for State. Mr.Anand S.Patil for Respondents 4 to 6. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- JANUARY 27, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned A.P.P. 2. Although we find force in the submission of the Petitioner that the written complaint sent by the Petitioner dated 22nd September, 2009 discloses commission of cognizable offence as a result of which, the in- charge Officer of the Shahpuri Police Station, Kolhapur was obliged to register F.I.R. and more so, after recording of the statement of the Petitioner on 22nd September, 2009 which reiterates the allegations in the written 2 2753.10 complaint. However, as the grievance regarding inaction and dereliction of duty was against the then Police Officer -Respondent No.2, coupled with the fact that learned A.P.P. assures that if the Petitioner presents himself before the in-charge Officer of Shahpuri Police Station, Kolhapur for recording of the statement, the said Officer would record the statement of the Petitioner and if it discloses cognizaable offence, shall reduce the same in writing in the book maintained in the Police Station for registration of F.I.R. and proceed against the concerned accused or suspects named by the Petitioner in the statement in accordance with law. 3. In view of this assurance given by the learned A.P.P., we leave it open to the Petitioner to approach the in-charge Officer of the concerned Police Station for recording of his statement on the basis of which the incumbent in-charge Police Station of Shahpuri Police Station shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The Petitioner is free to appear before the in- charge Officer of the Shahpuri Police Station on 2nd February, 2011 between 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. 4. Insofar as the grievance against the Police Officer -Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is noticed that Respondent No.3 at the relevant time was posted 3 2753.10 at Pune and had no concern with the act of commission and omission of the Respondent No.2. Insofar as Respondent No.2 is concerned, he is presently posted at Nagpur. 5. In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to allow the Petitioner to appear before the incumbent Officer in-charge of the Shahpuri Police Station so that, the matter can be proceeded in accordance with law. The grievance of the Petitioner against Respondent No.2 can be looked into by the Appropriate Authority at the Department level. The Petitioner is free to pursue that remedy against Respondent No.2, which we hope and trust will be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)