19. wp 3001­10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 3001 OF 2010 Paresh Chhotalal Parekh .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Bhavesh Parmar i/b Sandhya A. Mailagir for the Petitioner Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for the State Mr. V.R. Dhond a/w Subodh Desai a/w Shahezad Kazi and Ms. Shree Vardhini Parchure i/b M/s. Negandhi, Shah & Himayatulla for Respondent No. 3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.N. GILANI, JJ. DATE : 21st MARCH, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per HARDAS, J]: 1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that the petitioner does not press the relief as prayed for in prayer clauses (b) and (d) to the petition. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of the admission. 1 19. wp 3001­10.doc 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays vide prayer clause (c) for issuance of writ directing the respondent i.e respondent no. 2 to immediately and forthwith register an office on the basis of the report submitted by the petitioner on 10th August 2010 and 20th September 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the reliefs as prayer clauses (b) and (d) to the petition. 4. It appears that the petitioner has lodged initial complaint with the police station on 10th August 2010. Subsequently, after obtaining the reports of the handwriting expert / forensic expert, it came to be forwarded by the petitioner to the concerned police station on 20th September 2010. The petitioner has filed the present petition for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Notices in this petition came to be issued to the respondents and the respondents have filed their affidavits in reply. Affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Mr. Ramchandra J. Bandekar, Police Sub-Inspector presently attached to the Charkop Police Station, Kandivali (E), Mumbai states that he is ready and willing to initiate the inquiry as well as the investigation. The affidavit in reply also states that if necessary directions are issued by this Court regarding registration of the offence, the concerned police station would register the offence and investigate the same. 2 19. wp 3001­10.doc 6. The learned APP states on instructions from PSI Ramchandra Bandekar accordingly. This Court during the course of hearing made it very clear to the learned APP that this Court was not inclined to issue any directions regarding registration of the offence in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Aleque Padamsee Vs Union of India' (2007)6 SCC 171 and in the case of 'Sakiri Vasu Vs State of U.P.' AIR 2008 SC 907. The learned APP after confirming with the concerned PSI states that the PSI has instructed the learned APP to state that the police would register the offence. In that light of the matter, according to us, the reliefs as prayed for in the petition stands fully granted to the petitioner. We make it abundantly clear that we have not adjudicated other facets of the disputes on merits in the present petition. Obviously any contention or rival contentions raised by the parties have not been adjudicated upon by us. 7. Rule is therefore made absolute by accepting the statement of the learned APP that the police would register the offence on the basis of the complaint / reports of the petitioner. In these circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. [ M.N. GILANI, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 3 19. wp 3001­10.doc 4