1 Cri. W.P. 985.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 985 OF 2009 Shaikh Khalil S/o Shaikh Mannu Chaudhary, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Chaudhary Manzil, Rabmastpura, Aurangabad ...Petitioner V E R S U S The Police Inspector, Jinsi Police Station, Aurangabad and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr. M.A. Latif, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent-State. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2009 ORAL ORDER 1] This is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner praying at prayer clause (B) to the petition for directing the C.I.D. to register an offence under section 143, 147, 149, 341, 448, 452 and 380 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against "all the persons, who practically dispossessed the petitioner from his property including the persons Lalit Gandhi, Santosh Gandhi and all the Police 2 Cri. W.P. 985.2009 persons". Vide prayer clause (C) to the Petition the petitioner prays for directing the C.I.D. or Crime branch or any other authority to investigate the entire matter of dispossession of the petitioner from his property on 9.9.2009. Vide prayer clause (D) to the Petition, the petitioner prays for directing respondent nos. 1 to 3 to restore the possession of the petitioner. Vide prayer clause (E) to the Petition the petitioner prays for directing respondent no.4 to initiate departmental action against the Police persons of respondent nos. 1 and 2 who have actually committed the offence in collusion with others. The petitioner prays for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- vide relief at prayer clause (F) to the Petition. 2] Brief facts as are necessary for the decision of this Petition may briefly be stated thus:- . The petitioner claims to be in possession of plot nos. 6 and 8 which is portion of C.T.S. no. 12369/275 since 1984 and parks his trucks, tankers and other vehicles. According to the 3 Cri. W.P. 985.2009 petitioner on 26.8.2009 one Lalit Gandhi and Santosh Gandhi tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner as they had claimed to have purchased the said property. On 8.9.2009 the petitioner filed civil suit which was registered as Special Civil Suit no. 380 of 2009 seeking a declaration that the sale deed was illegal, null and void and also sought injunction restraining the purchasers of the said property from disturbing and interferring with the possession of the plaintiff. The trial Court declined to grant ex-parte injunction and also to grant order of status quo. The petitioner further claims that on 2.9.2009 the Inspector of Crime Branch one Dr. Chate and the Police Inspector of Jinsi Police Station namely S.K. Borse called the petitioner to their office and directed the petitioner to vacate the property and hand over the vacant possession to Lalit Gandhi and Santosh Gandhi. The petitioner appraised the Police Officers about the pendency of the civil suit and handed over the copy of plaint and the application for temporary injunction but the Police still threatened the petitioner of dis- 4 Cri. W.P. 985.2009 possession. Since the petitioner apprehended forcible dispossession at the hands of the Police, the petitioner filed civil suit which was registered as Regular Civil Suit no. 769 of 2009 on 4.9.2009 against the Police officers. The civil Court also declined to grant ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. Notices however, came to be issued in the civil suit which were made returnable on 9.9.2009. According to the petitioner meanwhile, on 9.9.2009, the Police Offices at the behest of Lalit Gandhi and Santosh Gandhi dis-possessed the petitioner of his property. Accordingly the present Petition has been filed. 3] We had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner if a report in the concerned Police station within whose jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have been committed was lodged by the petitioner? Our attention was invited to a representation which is addressed by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police dated 11.9.2009. Un-disputedly as of today no report within the meaning of section 154 of the Code of 5 Cri. W.P. 985.2009 Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner but the petitioner has only addressed a representation to the Commissioner of Police. 4] In any event, the reliefs which the petitioner has prayed for in this Petition vide prayer clause (B) and (C) to the Petition can-not be granted to the petitioner in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and others V. Union of India and others (2007) 6 S.C.C. 171 and in Sakiri Vasu V. State of U.P. and ors. AIR 2008 S.C. 907. The petitioner in this Petition has prayed for directing respondent no. 4 to take departmental action against the Police Officers who according to the petitioner have dis- possessed the petitioner. The petitioner, however, has not joined these Police Offices as parties to the Petition. The petitioner seeks relief against them and yet these Police Officers have not been joined as parties to the Petition. In that light of the matter, therefore, relief which the petitioner has prayed for at prayer clause (E) to the Petition can-not be granted. The petitioner vide prayer clause (F) has prayed 6 Cri. W.P. 985.2009 for payment of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Since the question as to whether the petitioner has been forcibly dis-possessed by the persons named by the petitioner in the Petition is yet to be decided, prayer for payment of compensation at this stage is a premature relief. In respect of the possession the petitioner may resort to the remedies available to the petitioner in law. Similarly in respect of prayer clause (B) the petitioner may avail the remedies available to the petitioner in law. 5] After hearing learned counsel for the parties we do not see any merit in the Petition and the Petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) arp