- 1 - 3103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3103 OF 2010 Satinder Jeet Trilokchan Nanda.. Petitioner vs The State of Maharasahtra & ors. Respondents Mr.Parvez Ubhary for Petitioner Ms.S.V.Gajre APP for Respondent-State Mr.N.Y.Patel for Respondent no.3 CORAM: P.V.HARDAS & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE: 14th March,2011 PER COURT 1. This is a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondent-Senior Inspector of Police, Versova Police station, Mumbai to investigate the complaint filed by the Petitioner with Versova Police station against the respondents. Vide prayer clause (b) the Petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus - 2 - 3103 directing the police to prevent the respondents from harassing and torturing the Petitioner and to allow the Petitioner to open his restaurant. By prayer clause (c) the Petitioner prays for calling the police personnel named in the Petition and also requests this Court to reprimand them for dereliction of duty. 2. It appears that on the basis of the interim orders passed by the Court of Small Causes, at Mumbai the Petitioner tried to open his shop and was prevented by the police personnel of Versova police station. These are the allegations of the Petitioner and therefore, this Court had directed by its order dated 18th February, 2011 the Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct a discreet inquiry in respect of both the allegations. The Deputy Commissioner of Police was also directed to submit a report - 3 - 3103 in a sealed cover. We have received the report in a sealed cover and we have perused the same. Upon perusal of the report it appears that on the basis of the discreet inquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police states that there is no interference by police of Versova police station. It is also stated that the application/report submitted by the Petitioner does not disclose any cognizance offence and the offence which is disclosed is a non-cognizance offence. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme court in ALEQUE PADAMSEE & ORS VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS (2007) (6) Supreme Court cases 171. The Supreme Court at paragraph 8 has held that if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the - 4 - 3103 modalities contained in Section 190 read with section 200 of the Code are to be adopted by Courts. At this juncture, reference may be usefully made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in SAKIRI VASU VS.STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS AIR 2008 SC 907 wherein the Supreme Court has made similar observations. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner by prayer clause (a) would not be available to the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore, if advised may resort to the remedies available to the Petitioner in law. 4. In respect of the reliefs prayed in prayer clause (b) the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police submitted clearly reveals that the police personnel are not interfering in the business of the Petitioner as and when claimed by the - 5 - 3103 Petitioner nor are they harassing or torturing. In the light of the matter therefore, we are not inclined to interfere and direct the Petitioner to avail the remedies available to the Petitioner in law and to enforce the order passed by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. Consequent upon the aforesaid observations, the Petition is not maintainable in respect of the reliefs prayed by the Petitioner in prayer clause (c) of the Petition. 5. Considering what has been held above according to us, there is no merit in the Petition. Petition is therefore, dismissed and relegate the Petitioner to avail the remedies available in law with no order as to costs. (N.D.Deshpande,J) (P.V.Hardas,J) - 6 - 3103