1 3573.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3573 OF 2011 Sharad Shyamlal Gupta ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Chaitanya A.Malgaonkar i/b Mr.Rishi Bhuta for Petitioner. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, A.P.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 5, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. We are in agreement with the learned A.P.P. that the reliefs claimed in this Petition, to say the least, are preposterous. 2. The first relief claimed by the petitioner is to issue direction to respondent No.2 Commissioner of Police/Inspector of police that if any complaint is received naming the petitioner for having failed to return any amount, that complaint should be sent for investigation to Santacruz Police Station. Said relief, as aforesaid, cannot be countenanced. The second relief claimed by the petitioner is that the said respondent should take notice of 2 3573.11 the public notices and letters written by the petitioner that if anyone has complaint about refund of deposits, must directly approach him so that the amount can be returned to that person. We fail to understand as to how such relief can be entertained in writ jurisdiction. In any case, the petitioner cannot seek relief which will result in issuing direction to the official respondents to refrain from discharging their official duty which they are obliged to do as per law. If the official respondents were to receive any complaints disclosing cognizable offence and indicating complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the said offence, would be obliged to act upon such complaint in accordance with law. 3. In the circumstances, this Petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)