1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.540 OF 2009 Suman W/o. Ashok Bhusari. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. Bharat R. Warma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondents. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 6th AUGUST 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel Shri. B.R. Warma appearing for the petitioner raised an issue that a stamp vendor licence was granted to one Dnyaneshwar Joshi in the year 1990 and continued thereafter to be renewed. In the submission of the counsel there was no original licence granted 2 to Dnyaneshwar Joshi hence there was no question of granting duplicate licence. A complaint therefore was filed on 3rd March 2009 to the Police Station Sonai by petitioner Sow Suman Bhusari. A communication is annexed to the petition issued by the Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station Sonai dated 3-3-2009 wherein it seems that the complaint was forwarded to the Collector Stamps for further inquiry. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had grievance against the authorities to whom the complaint is forwarded for inquiry which itself shows non application mind on the part of the police. 3) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Sonwane is instructed by the police officer today. The A.P.P. submits that as on today the complaint is neither closed nor registered as First Information Report and, according to the instructions, the A.P.P. submits that the inquiry is going on. 3 4) It is surprising to note that there is nothing placed on record by the prosecution to show that entry of the complaint was taken in some of the registers which the police station maintains. We find that it is necessary to scrutinize as to whether any complaint lodged by a person is at least taken note of in any of the registers maintained by the police station so that the record would reflect that a citizen had filed complaint to the police station. Whether any cognizable or non cognizable offence is disclosed is an entirely different issue at that stage. 5) We find that keeping complaint pending for such a long period without there being any record of pendency or otherwise reflects adversely on the prosecution agency. Whatever may be the outcome of the investigation it must reflect in the record maintained by the police station when a complaint is filed by a citizen. 4 6) The learned APP, on instructions, submits that the inquiry would be conducted at the earliest and final decision would be taken regarding the complaint filed. We express no opinion of this court regarding merits of the matter. We observe that the petitioner has filed this writ petition relating to a licence granted to one Dnyaneshwar Joshi, who is not made a party to this petition. We do not find any satisfactory explanation on the part of the petitioner as to why the petitioner is raising this grievance after near about 17 to 18 years. The petitioner even has other statutory remedies for redressal of her grievances. Considering all these circumstances we are not inclined to entertain this petition and grant prayers to the petitioner in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution India. 7) At this stage, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. 5 8) It is necessary for the officers in charge of police stations to maintain the record of complaints filed by any citizen in accordance with the Bombay Police Manual 1959, the rules and regulations framed accordingly in that respect. 9) We direct the Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar to take stock of the situation of various police stations of Taluka Headquarters including district as to whether the procedure prescribed in the Bombay Police Manual 1959 is strictly followed or not. The Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crwp.540.09