1 cri-wp-2449-09 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2449 OF 2009 Mrs. Devanshi Parag Bhartdwaj .. Petitioner Vs. The Police Commissioner and ors. .. Respondents Ms. Aruna P. Chaurasia i/by Mr. S. V. Sadavarte for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JULY 28, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Sadavarte, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at length on more than one occasions and yesterday, on conclusion of his arguments, while we were on the verge of dictating the order, he sought time to take instructions to withdraw the petition and, 2 cri-wp-2449-09 therefore, the petition has been listed for withdrawal today. Now we are informed that the petitioner is not inclined to withdraw the petition. Hence, we proceed to pass the order on merits. 2. The petitioner’s prayer in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution reads as under:- “By issuing an appropriate writ, order/direction, the respondents be directed to take immediate appropriate steps in C.R. No. 101 of 2009 / FIR 177 of 2009 dated 16/5/2009 against the accused persons.” 3. As per the petitioner, she is married on 27/3/2008 to Mr. Parag Bhartdwaj, who is a citizen of Scotland (UK) and immediately after marriage, he left for London but without taking her with him. However, in the month of June/July, she went to London when she was not even welcomed by her husband or by any of his family members and, therefore, she claims that she was neglected and ultimately in the month of October/November, 2008 she suffered mental and physical cruelty at the hands of her husband and his family members in her matrimonial home at 3 cri-wp-2449-09 London. She further alleges that her husband deserted her forcibly and sent her back to India on 11/12/2008 and thereafter she tried her best to convince her husband but in vain and, therefore, on 14/3/2009 she approached the Borivali Police Station and filed a complaint alleging mental and physical cruelty caused by her husband and his family members while she was in London in her matrimonial home. She also admits that, on her complaint, C.R. No. 101 of 2009 came to be registered with the said police station. 4. Shri Sudhir V. Hirdekar, Assistant Inspector of Police from Borivali Police Station, Mumbai has filed affidavit-in-reply and has stated that on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner C.R. No. 177 of 2009 was registered on 16/5/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC against (i) Mr. Parag Bhartdwaj, husband of the petitioner, (ii) Mr. Ajay Sonilal Bhartdwaj, father-in-law and Mrs. Nirupama Bhartdwaj, mother-in-law. The affidavit further states that the address of her in-laws was obtained and notices were sent to them but notices could not be served. In the meanwhile he has recorded the statements of Smt. Kiran Kamlesh Mehta and Mr. Kamlesh Ravishankar Mehta, the parents of the petitioner on 20/5/2009. He further 4 cri-wp-2449-09 states in his affidavit that despite reminders sent to the accused persons they have not been available to record their statements and, through the Senior Inspector of Police, Borivali Police Station, a letter has been sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Branch-II) on 25/7/2009 requesting the said authority to issue a “Look Out Notice” against the accused persons. We are, therefore, satisfied that in the circumstances, the Borivali Police Station has taken due steps as were required for causing investigation of the offence registered. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed divorce proceeding in the Family Court and Mr. Parag Bhartdwaj has also, before the petitioner approached the Family Court, initiated similar proceedings before the competent court in UK and the marriage has thus irretrievably broken down. 6. As noted earlier, the prayer of the petitioner is only to direct the police authorities to take appropriate steps and police have taken such steps, including request to the higher authorities to issue a lookout notice against the accused. 5 cri-wp-2449-09 7. Hence, the petition is rejected with liberty to the petitioner as is available in law. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)