1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.507 OF 2011 Kiran S. Kale and others Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.Kamlesh Mishra for petitioners. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for respondent no.1. Mr.Vikram Patil i/by V.S.Deokar for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr.S.V.Gavand for respondent no.4. Mr.K.V.Patil, Police Inspector, Kharghar Police Station present. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKALR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 19th October 2011 PC : 1. Heard. Two reliefs have been claimed in this petition. The first relief is to direct the respondent no.1 to investigate the complaint made by the petitioners dated 4th December 2010 more particularly on the basis of the statement recorded by the Police on 8th January 2011. The second relief is to initiate suo-motu contempt proceedings against respondent no.4 for making false statement on oath with ulterior motive to mislead this Court. 2. Earlier the petitioners had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.3616 of 2010 in which they had prayed for two reliefs. The first relief was to 2 issue direction to transfer the investigation of the case registered against them in which they were named as accused at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 452, 323, 504, 427 of IPC.. The second relief was to issue a direction to the local Police Officer to register FIR in connection with the petitioners' complaint dated 4th December 2010 against respondent no.2. 3. As regards the first relief claimed in the said petition, that was rejected. As regards second relief in the said petition, it may have some bearing on the controversy brought before this Court by way of present petition. Insofar as second relief of issuing direction to the local Police Officer to register FIR on the basis of complaint of the petitioners dated 4th December 2010, this Court disposed of that relief by giving liberty to the petitioners to present themselves in the Police Station for recording of their statements and if the statements so recorded disclosed cognizable offence, the local Police Officer would proceed to register FIR and take necessary action in accordance with law. 4. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the liberty given by this Court in terms of order dated 7th January 2011, the petitioners presented themselves before the local Police Station. The respondent no.4, who is the Investigating Officer in the criminal case registered against the petitioner filed by the respondent no.2, presumably caused to record the statement of the petitioners through another Police Officer i.e. API Kothalikar. The said Police Officer accordingly recorded the statement of the petitioners on 7th January 2011. That statement is at pages 66 and 67 of our paper book. According to the petitioners, the said statement by itself discloses commission of cognizable offence for which reason FIR ought to have been registered by the 3 concerned Police Officer. According to the counsel for respondent no. 4 as well as learned APP, the statement of petitioners as recorded on 7th January 2011 does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. We are in agreement with the said submission. 5. To get over this position, learned counsel for petitioners submits that, the statement of the petitioners as recorded on 7th January 2011 has been twisted and is incorrect. From the averments in the petition as well as from the further affidavits filed by the petitioners, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners have challenged the falsity of the said statement or correctness of the said statement recorded by the concerned Police Officer on 7th January 2011. In absence of such plea specifically taken by the petitioners on affidavit, we cannot permit the advocate for the petitioners to argue before us that the Police Officer committed mischief in recording of the statement dated 7th January 2011. In our view, the petitioners are not entitled to relief in terms of prayer clause (b) for issuance of directions to the local Police Officer to register FIR on the basis of petitioners' statement dated 7th January 2011. If the petitioners are not satisfied, are free to take recourse to alternative remedy by way of private complaint, if so advised, which will be proceeded in accordance with law. 6. As regards second relief claimed by the petitioners for initiating suo-motu contempt proceedings against respondent no.4, even this relief is devoid of merit. It is founded on the incorrect date mentioned regarding filing of the charge sheet before the concerned Court in criminal case registered against the petitioners. We do not think that the statement so made was with a view to mislead the Court. The fact remains that when the order was passed on 7th January 2011, the charge sheet in the case registered against the petitioners was already filed in the concerned Court. That is indisputable. 4 Accordingly, the petition fails. The same is dismissed with above observations. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)