1 2641.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2641 OF 2011 Raj Oceanic Shipping Company ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra (Through Senior Inspector of Police) & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Rajneesh Ranjan for Petitioner. Mr.P.A.Pol, P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- SEPTEMBER 15, 2011. P.C. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following substantive reliefs: “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to consider the steps taken by the Respondents and after perusing the same and going through the legality and validity of the measures taken by the Respondents set-aside, quash, recall, annul the police proceedings; (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the measures taken by the Respondents is illegal and unsustainable as the same is causing unnecessary harassment and prejudice to petitioner and amounts to abuse of process of law; (c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ to the Respondent No.2, that under which authority they have claimed to take physical possession of the aid vessel.” 2 2641.11 2. In the context of these reliefs, we called upon the Public Prosecutor to produce the relevant record which would justify the action taken by the local police officers against the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor has produced the original record in custody of the Investigating Officer to show that F.I.R. was registered at the instance of Union Bank of India bearing F.I.R.No.200/2010 on 22nd December, 2010. On the basis of the said F.I.R., the Investigating Officer is proceeding in the matter. 3. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the Union Bank of India has taken possession of the Barge which was earlier owned and possessed by the petitioner in connection with the Bank loan transaction. After taking over possession of the Barge by the bank, the petitioner has taken away the said Barge which is nothing short of stealing the said property from the Bank. The argument of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be charged with stealing his own property is, therefore, completely misplaced and cannot be countenanced. 4. Suffice it to observe that we are satisfied with the record produced by the Public Prosecutor which indicates that the petitioner is being proceeded by the local police officers on the basis of the complaint registered with 3 2641.11 N.R.I. Sagari Police Station, Navi Mumbai. In the circumstances, no further direction is required in this Petition. The same is dismissed. 5. We, however, make it clear that dismissal of this Petition will not be an impediment for the petitioner to pursue other remedies as may be available in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)