1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.479 OF 2011 (Sau. Pushpa w/o Radhakrishnan Uyyalwar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R.M. Patwardhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. --------- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondpipri, District Chandrapur to ascertain from all the Police Stations seeking custody of the husband of the petitioner in offences registered at the respective Police Stations before shifting the husband of the petitioner from one Police Station to other. The petitioner also prays 2 for directing the respondent no.1 to inform this Court as to how many Police Station Officers had come forward to trace and arrest the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for directing the learned Magistrate not to hand over custody of the husband of the petitioner to any other Police Station till decision of the present petition. It appears that the husband of the petitioner is required by various Police Stations in respect of the offences registered at the concerned Police Stations. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner had been arrested and produced before a Magistrate and thereafter when the learned Magistrate passed orders of releasing the husband of the petitioner on bail, the husband of the petitioner came to be arrested by the Police in respect of an offence committed in the jurisdiction of some other Police Station. The petitioner, therefore, by this petition has prayed for the aforesaid reliefs, to which we have adverted to above. Shri Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of the 3 Supreme Court in S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and others (AIR 1970 SC 786). The ratio of the said judgment is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court in the said judgment was concerned with the interpretation of Sections 159, 156 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vis a vis the power of the concerned Police Stations to obtain custody of the accused in respect of the offences registered against the accused in the Police Stations. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uday Chand and others vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J&K and others {(1983) 2 SCC 417}. In the said case, it was averred that custody of the accused had been obtained by another Police Station after the accused had been released on bail without even informing the concerned Magistrate. In the present petition, there is no tangential reference to the fact that custody of the husband of the petitioner had been obtained by various Police Stations without even informing the concerned Magistrate. 4 Upon consideration of the facts of the present case, according to us, the reliefs, which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, cannot be granted. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which would entail issuance of any direction to the learned Magistrate to ascertain from various Police Stations whether offences have been registered against the husband of the petitioner. The reliefs, which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, are beyond the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that light of the matter, this petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE khj