1 cri-wp-531-11.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 531 OF 2011 Mr. Saifuddin Dawoodbhai Lakdawala and anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents Mrs. Anjali R. Awasthi for petitioner. Mr. P.A. Pol, PP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 15, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mrs. Awasthi for the petitioners. By an additional affidavit, a copy of the petitioners’ purported complaint dated 16/6/2006 addressed to the Senior Inspector of Police, Kurla Police Station has been placed on record. Subsequently, on 1/12/2006 the learned Advocate for the petitioners addressed a letter to the very same 2 cri-wp-531-11.doc officer of Kurla Police Station requesting to register an FIR for committing the offences of cheating, forgery and preparing fabricated document under the MUT Project and RR and also to initiate preventive action to restrain the MMRDA and its officers for further committing the cognizable offences. The names of 12 such officers were set out in the same letter dated 1/12/2006. It appears pursuant to these communications dated 16/6/2006 and 1/12/2006 the petitioner no.2’s statement came to be recorded on 8/8/2008 by Mrs. Rashmi Rajendra Jadhav, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. We have perused the same. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray for directions to the ACB to register an FIR against the public servants named in the letter dated 1/12/2006 sent by the learned Advocate to the Kurla Police Station. 2. Undoubtedly, the purported complaint dated 16/6/2006 is only based on some apprehensions without giving any details of any offence that had taken place. The letter dated 1/12/2006 submitted by the learned Advocate also does not make out any incidence of offence, clearly and distinctly. It makes out some vague allegations like that as per the knowledge of the petitioners an amount of Rs. 425 crores available in the 3 cri-wp-531-11.doc MMRDA office was disbursed to the builder and it alleges that an FIR was required to be registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. for committing the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d)(ii) (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. We have also perused the statement of the petitioner no.2 recorded by Mrs. Rashmi Rajendra Jadhav on 8/8/2008. We have no doubt that in the said statement no specific case of any offence punishable under the IPC or under the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 has been made out. The last two paragraphs of the said statement read as under:- “rlsp eh vlsgh Li"V djrks dh] fjfyQ jksM lkslk;Vhus MPp U;k;ky;kr egkjk"Vª jkT;kps fo:/n lu 1999 e/;s nk[ky dsysY;k fjVfiV'kuyk mRrj nsrkauk egkjk"Vª 'kklukus izfrKki=k}kjs vls fuosnu dsys vkgs dh] >ksiMiVV~h /kkjdkaps iquZoluklkBhph ik=rk fnukad 1-1-1995 gh iq<s ok<fo.;kr ;s.kkj ukgh- vkf.k vls vlrkaukgh ,e-,e- vkj-Mh-,- ;kauh ek-U;k;ky;kpk voeku d:u R;kauh jkcfoysY;k ;kstuse/;s fnukad 1-1-1995 ph dV vkWQ MsV voS|fjR;k ok<foyh vkgs- ,e-vkj-Vh-ih- ps dye 159 rhy rjrqnh uqlkj jkT; ljdkj }kjs eaqcbZ 'kgjkps fodklklkBh fodkl fu;a=.k fu;ekoyh] 1991 ykxq dj.;kr vkyh vkgs- 4 cri-wp-531-11.doc 'kklukrQsZ eqacbZ 'kgjkpk fodkl o eqacbZ 'kgjkrhy jghok'kkauk ik;kHkqr lqfo/kk miyC/k d#u ns.;klkBh ,e-,e-vkj-Mh-,- rQsZ ,e-;q-Vh-ih- vkf.k ,e-;q-vk;-ih- ekQZr fodklkP;k ;kstuk jkcfo.;kr ;sr vkgsr- ,e-,e-vkj-Mh-,- us ifjf'k"V & 2 e/;s vik= >ksiMh/kkjdkaph ukaos ik= nk[koqu fodkldkauk eksB;k izek.kkr voS| Lye fVMhvkj miyC/k d:u fnysyk vkgs- T;kpk okij fodkld uarj eqacbZ 'kgjkrp dj.kkj vlY;keqGs R;kuarj R;kpk izR;{k vfrjhDr Hkkj eqacbZ 'kgjkP;k okgrqd] fo|qr] ik.kh vkf.k brj ukxjh lqfo/kkaoj iM.kkj vkgs- T;keqGs djik= ukxjhdkauk ;kps uqdlku Hkksxkos ykx.kkj vkgsr- R;keqGs ,e-,e- vkj-Mh-,- T;k 'kgjh vkFkhZd fodklkP;k mnn~s'kus ,e-;q-Vh-ih vkf.k ,e-;q- vk;-ih- ekQZr ;kstuk jkcfor vkgsr R;krqu R;kaps mfnn~"V lQy gksr ukgh-Þ 3. We are, therefore, satisfied that this is a frivolous petition filed and it deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 4. Petition is dismissed. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)