1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.682 OF 2010 Firoz Usman Tinwala .. Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Milan Desai i/b Saeeda Shaikh for the petitioner. Mrs.A.S.Pai A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 15TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for direction to Yellow Gate police station/The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Anti Narcotics Cell), to register FIR against Shri Survade and his unknown accomplices for the offences punishable under section 195-A, 367, 506(ii) r/w 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC and under section 3, 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to conduct and carry out fair and unbiased investigation and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 3. On last occasion, this court passed the following order: “The case of the petitioner is that on a complaint lodged by him against Senior PI Sahebrao Barsu 2 Survade of R.A.Kidwai Marg police station, a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him. The said case is about to start. Evidence will soon be recorded. 2. According to the petitioner on 5.2.2010 he was kidnapped by some people. According to him the kidnapping was done at the instance of Mr.Survade with a view to preventing him from deposing against Mr.Survade. Out of fear the petitioner agreed to the suggestion made by the kidnappers that he would not depose against PI Survade so that he would be released and then he was released. In respect of this incident, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 5/2/2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that the police did not take cognizance of his complaint though cognizable offence was disclosed. 3. This petition was filed on 25/2/2010 making the above grievance. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs us that it is only on 7/3/2010 that the police registered the FIR of the petitioner. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the police are purposely not taking action on his complaint because they want to protect PI Survade. The petitioner also fears that he may be again kidnapped or that he may be physically harmed. He has, therefore, submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai which is pending. No action is taken on that complaint. 4. At this stage, we do not want to make any observation on the merits of the case but we do feel that the police ought to have taken prompt action in 3 accordance with law on the petitioner’s complaint. Learned APP tells us that the petitioner had lodged a complaint at Yellow Gate police station and, therefore, no prompt action could be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner denies this. At this stage we would only say that, we expect the police to expeditiously look into the petitioner’s complaint and take action in accordance with law. The police should not be swayed by the fact that the petitioner’s complaint has resulted in the prosecution of PI Survade. The investigation must be independent. 5. We are informed by learned APP that Senior PI Kochar is investigating the petitioner’s complaint. We direct Senior PI Dongri police station to supervise the investigation. If, we find that the investigation is not on proper lines further appropriate orders will be passed on the adjourned date of hearing. We may, however, be not understood to have expressed any opinion in favour of the petitioner as we have not examined merits of the case. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has informed us that in his complaint which is lying with the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, the petitioner has prayed for police protection at his cost. We expect the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to deal with the said complaint and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the said complaint.” 4. Learned APP, on instructions, submits that the police have 4 already registered an offence against one Sajid Khan and three unknown persons and investigation is in progress. She further submits they are also carrying out the investigation in the direction to find out whether Mr.Survade was involved in the alleged incident of kidnapping. Learned APP further submits that the investigating officer would not hesitate to arrest Mr.Survade if they find his involvement in the alleged incident of kidnapping. The incident of kidnapping took place on 5.2.2010. In view of the statement made by learned APP and considering the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by this court on last occasion, both the prayers in the petition, in our opinion, stand satisfied, hence the petition is disposed of. 5. Mr.Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already applied for police protection to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. We expect the Commissioner of Police to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by petitioner within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order. 6. The parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry of this court. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)