1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.586/2009 Shri Rashid Khan Gaffar Khan Pathan ...Versus... State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri H.R. Dhumale, Adv. for petitioner] [Smt. S.S. Wandile, APP for respdt. Nos.1 to 6] [Shri A.S. Mardikar, Adv. for respdt. No.7] CORAM:- MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 08.09.2010 P. C. Heard. In this petition, filed on 14.10.2009, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs. “(i) direct the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 to take appropriate action against the respondent no.7 for conducting defective, fake and bogus investigation of A.D. No.52/1999. (ii) direct the respondent nos.2 to 6 to register offence against the respondent no.7 in pursuance of petitioner's application dated 16.20.2006 (Annexure-3) and 07.03.2008 (Annexure-5).” In the affidavit dated 21.6.2010 filed by respondent No.4 – Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal, he has stated that pursuant to the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Darwha, the S.D.P.O. has filed F.I.R. with Police Station 2 Pusad (City) on 20.6.2010 vide Crime No.172/2010 against the respondent no.7 under Sections 202, 166, 217, 218, 465, 471, 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Copies of the F.I.R. and the order regarding investigation are produced at Annexure R-2 and R-3 to the affidavit. In view of the above, nothing further survives in the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the authorities have lodged complaint against respondent No.7 for the offences, which are bailable, and have deliberately not included the offence punishable under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the petitioner shall move the appropriate Court for directions to the authorities in the said matter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that respondent No.7 has filed a petition for quashing the above Complaint No.172/2010 and the petitioner has already moved application for being impleading him as party respondent in the said proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the filing of the above complaint against respondent No.7, we dismiss this petition as infructuous with a clarification that dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner in moving the Court for adding further offences in the complaint against respondent No.7 and for participating in the quashing proceedings instituted by respondent No.7. Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed, subject to the above. So far as Criminal Application No.137/2010 is concerned, we are not inclined to entertain this application for directions against respondent Nos.2 to 4 to pay compensation to the petitioner for the delay in filing complaint against respondent No.7, because the petitioner himself had filed Criminal Writ Petition in October, 2009. 3 However, we also make it clear that if the petitioner seeks any compensation from respondent No.7 or any other officer incharge of the police station at Pusad (City), this order will not come in the way of the petitioner while prosecuting the case. The observations made above may not be treated as expressing any opinion that the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from any person. In view of above, Criminal Application No.137/2010 is disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE SSW