Cri.W.P.No.532/2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.532 OF 2003 1. Ashok s/o Thakurlal Rathod, Age 55 years, Occu.Service, 2. Lata w/o Ashok Rathod, Age 50 years, Occu.Household work 3. Manoj s/o Ashok Rathod, Age 27 years, Occu.Education, 4. Dineshchand s/o Ashok Rathod, Age 23 years, Occu.Education, Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 R/o Plot No.224/A, Ulkanagari, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangqabad District Aurangabad 5. Laxmibai w/o Jaiprakash Rathod, Age 40 years, Occu.Household work, 6. Ganesh s/o Jaiprakash Rathod, Age 23 years, Occu.Labour work, 7. Mahesh s/o Jaiprakash Rathod, Age 20 years, Occu.Business, Petitioner Nos.5 to 7 R/o Bulbule Wada, Shakti Nagar, Nanded, Dist.Nanded .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Inspector General of Police, Mumbai 3. The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad Cri.W.P.No.532/2003 2 4. The Superintendent of Police, Hingoli 5. The Police Inspector, Shri Aslatwar, Hingoli City Police Station, Hingoli 6. The Police Sub-Inspector, Shri I.B.Swami, Hingoli City Police Station, Hingoli ..RESPONDENTS Mr R.M.Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners Mr D.V.Tele, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 to 6 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 28th February 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners pray for directing the respondents to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the petitioners as compensation for their illegal detention. 2. According to the petitioners the petitioners were taken to the Police Station by the respondents on 14.11.2003 and were placed in the lock up and were produced at 2.30 in the afternoon of 15.11.2003 before the Naib Tahsildar before whom proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated. The petitioners, therefore, claim that they Cri.W.P.No.532/2003 3 were illegally detained from 4.00 p.m. of 14.11.2003 till 2.30 p.m. of 15.11.2003. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit- in-reply it is clearly stated that the petitioners were not arrested but were required to be brought to the Police Station in order to avoid the commission of a cognizable offence. It is further stated that the petitioners were not placed in the Police lock up but were made to sit in the chamber of the Police Inspector and the Police Inspector had offered them tea. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioners were permitted to go home and were asked to appear before the Naib Tahsildar at 2.30 p.m. on the next day. It is stated that accordingly the petitioners appeared and proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated. The respondents, therefore, state that neither were the petitioners arrested illegally nor were the petitioners detained illegally. 4. In the light of the aforesaid disputed questions of facts and particularly in the light of the fact that there is no contemporaneous record which would in any manner assist the petitioners, according to us the petition deserves to be dismissed. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents clearly Cri.W.P.No.532/2003 4 indicates that there was no illegal detention of the petitioners. As pointed out by us above, there is no contemporaneous document on record to indicate or to buttress or fortify the claim of the petitioner. In that light of the matter, according to us the petition deserves to be dismissed as disputed questions of facts cannot be resolved in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, there being no merit in the petition, the petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Rule discharged. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/532.2003criwp)