1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.396 OF 2010 With Criminal Application No.51 of 2010 Mrs.Krishna Satish Singh Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents Mrs.K.S.Singh, petitioner in person. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. June 10, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard the petitioner, party in person and she has raised various grievances in this petition as under, (a) the recovery of salary / professional fees from one Mr.Ajit Patnaik who had appointed her on a monthly salary of Rs.5000/- and as per the 2 petitioner, the salary for 15 months was not paid and an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- was due from Mr.Patnaik, (b) illegal termination of service, (c) dismissal of her private complaint by the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, (d) professional misconduct of Miss Vandita Trivedi, Advocate who was conducting the petitioner’s case before the Labour Court, Industrial Court and the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, (e) her complaint before the State Women’s Commission has not been considered properly and the case has been closed, and (f) the Assistant Labour Commissioner did not conduct the proceedings properly and acted under the influence of Mr.Ajit Patnaik and the Association of the Film Industry. 2. The petitioner has also alleged that Mr.Ajit Patnaik had forced and 3 threatened her to sign the alleged settlement dated 20/5/2005 which was a settlement for payment of legal dues. 3. It is not in dispute that with the intervention of the Labour Commissioner’s office the petitioner has received about Rs.85,000/- and as per her more than Rs.50,000/- are yet to be recovered. Regarding her complaint of illegal termination of service, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation, Mumbai by his order dated 25th April 2007 has referred the demand for reinstatement in service with continuity of all consequential benefits for adjudication to the Labour Court and the said demand is against M/s. M/s. Design Works, 142/147, Ghaswala Estate, Opposite 24 Carret Cinema, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. The said reference is pending for adjudication as of now before the 7th Labour Court at Bandra, Mumbai and registered as Reference IDA No.124 of 2007. 4. If the private complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner’s remedy is either to approach the Sessions Court or file a petition before the learned single Judge of this Court against the said order. The petitioner’s grievance against her Advocate cannot be gone into in this writ petition moved on the 4 criminal side of this Court and the petitioner has rightly approached the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in that regard. She has also filed a petition before the Consumer Redressal Forum, Mumbai District against the said Advocate. The record further shows that the petitioner had approached this Court in Public Interest Litigation (Lodging) No.4 of 2008 and she had also taken out a Notice of Motion in the said petition. It appears that she had raised a grievance about the procedure that was being followed by the 7th Labour Court at Bandra. The said petition came to be subsequently listed as Public Interest Litigation No.90 of 2009 and on 10th December 2009 the petition was dismissed. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph nos.3 to 5 of the said order, “3. The petitioner, appearing in person, harbours an impression that whole system is corrupt and that the lawyers engaged by her have been won over by the opposite side. She submits that until she gets justice by grant of such reliefs in favour of the petitioner, the court should continue to hear and keep the petition alive. 4. This petition has been adjourned from time to time with no positive reliefs. On one occasion, Mr.C.U.Singh, Senior Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae for the petitioner. Thereafter, he was discharged, as the petitioner wanted to argue the matter in person. 5 5. We find that keeping the petition alive would result in keeping the petitioner waiting with a hope. At some stage the court should inform the petitioner that such a petition is not tenable in public interest nor it would fructify in any relief or justice to the persons, whose cause the petitioner is purported to be prosecuting.” 5. While hearing this petition we have tried to impress upon the petitioner that the prayers she has made in this petition and as amended from time to time cannot be considered by us. For example she has sought directions against the State of Maharashtra to frame proper guidelines for working of the film industry. We have gone through her complaint addressed to the police stations and more particularly FIR No.164 of 2007 registered on 14/4/2007 with Oshiwara Police Station. In her detail first information that she recorded with the police station, the only grievance raised was that a bill of Rs.50/- was prepared and it was a bogus bill. The petitioner also submitted before us that after she got married, some vested interests tried to disturb her matrimonial life and even her husband was harassed. If the petitioner has any complaints amounting to an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and such an incident has happened any time after 20th May 2005, she is at liberty to approach the nearest police station and lodge a complaint. The record shows that CC No. 6 354/Misc./2009 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 477-A, 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC against Miss Asha Parekh, Mr.Sunil Sangbth of Chrysalis Film, and Mr.Suryavanshi, Assistant Labour Commissioner. There is yet another complaint registered as 194/M/2007 in which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of 22nd Court, Andheri passed an on 18/11/2008 and directed the Senior P.I. of Andheri Police Station to enquire into the complaint and submit a report under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. on or before 24th February 2009. Both these cases are still pending. 6. We have gone through the reliefs prayed for in this petition which in fact seeks directions to various authorities and Courts including the Labour Court, Industrial Court, Joint Commissioner of Police and also the State of Maharashtra and the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates. The petitioner also prays for directions to be issued by this Court for the protection of the petitioner, directions to the accused to pay her compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and directions to take timely action against third persons who are unnecessarily giving “Lalach” for destroying her life. All these reliefs cannot be looked into in a writ petition on the criminal side and this 7 was made clear to the petitioner in the public interest petition filed by her earlier, as well 7. However, if the petitioner approaches the Oshiwara Police Station within one week from today and lodges a complaint making out an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code including an offence of sexual harassment, we direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in charge of the said Police Station to ensure that such a complaint is recorded and all further steps are taken as per law expeditiously. 8. Save and except the above directions, the petition is disposed off and we make it clear that the petitioner’s alternative remedy as she may have before any other forum is not affected in any way by this order. 9. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, Criminal Application no.51 of 2010 does not survive and the same stands disposed as such. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)