1 wp.1097.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2010 Shri.Vipin Bishandas Bhagat ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Anurag Jain for Petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for State. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- AUGUST 24, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner in this Petition is that his complaint dated 15th March 2010 although makes out case of cognizable offence, is not being entertained by the local police. No FIR is being registered by the local Police. In this backdrop, the Petitioner has approached this Court to issue direction to the Respondents to register FIR on the basis of the said complaint and investigate the matter and to take further necessary action. The Petitioner has also prayed for direction against Respondents 1 and 2 to provide appropriate protection to the Petitioner and his family members. 2 wp.1097.10.sxw 3. Insofar as the second prayer is concerned, it is on the basis of alleged threat administered by the proposed accused. That relief is premature. The Petitioner will have to approach the local Police if such occasion arises on the basis of which appropriate decision can be taken by the local Police. 4. Reverting back to prayer clause (a), the only argument canvassed by the learned A.P.P. is that the complaint lodged by the Petitioner cannot be entertained because the same pertains to document prepared at Delhi and not within the jurisdiction of Khalapur Police Station. This argument has been countered by the Petitioner by relying on the fact that self same document has been produced during the investigation of a case in the same Police Station registered at the instance of the proposed accused. The fact that the said document has been produced before the local Police Station is reinforced from the charge-sheet filed by the Police in the said proceedings. The document is part of the said charge-sheet. If it is so, as the document was produced before the local Police Station at Khalapur in connection with some other case projecting that it is a genuine document, needless to observe that such attempt would be an offence committed within the jurisdiction of Khalapur Police Station, irrespective of whether the document was originally forged at Delhi. 3 wp.1097.10.sxw 5. During the course of hearing, it was suggested that the said document was not produced by the proposed accused but by the Petitioner himself during the investigation of the connected case. That is a matter which will have to be considered by the local Police while examining the complaint lodged by the Petitioner. We express no opinion on the said factual controversy at this stage. Suffice it to observe that if the document is part of record before the local Police Station, the Khalapur Police Station cannot be heard to suggest that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as presented by the Petitioner. Assuming that the document has been produced by the Petitioner himself, the efficacy of such act of commission and omission will also have to be considered by the Police while examining the complaint filed by the Petitioner and appropriate decision taken thereon. If the local Police is convinced that cognizable offence is made out and there is prima facie material to proceed against the proposed accused, may have to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 15th March 2010. 6. In the circumstances, the Petition succeeds only to the above extent and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 11(a) accordingly. We once again make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the 4 wp.1097.10.sxw correctness of the stand taken by either party which is a matter to be examined by the concerned Police Station while considering the allegations in the complaint dated 15th March 2010 and take appropriate decision as may be advised in accordance with law. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)