- 1 - rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2087 OF 2009 Mrs Jahaara Javed Khan .. Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra & ors ... Respondents Mr.J.B.Kocheta for Petitioner Mr.R.S.More A.P.P.for Respondent-State Ms.Trupti Shetty for Respondent nos. 4 & 5. ... CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATED: 24th February 2010 P.C. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the respondent State. 2. According to the petitioner, on 22nd August, 2007 respondent nos. 4 and 5 poured kerosene on her and her six month old child. It is the case of the petitioner that because of this incident the petitioner suffered miscarriage. In respect of this incident, she went to lodge complaint to the police. Grievance of the petitioner is that cognizance of that complaint was not - 2 - taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated this grievance. 4. It appears that the petitioner had approached Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai. Order dated 6th February, 2010 passed by the Human Rights Commission is annexed to the petition. In that order Human Rights Commission has stated that the facts do not indicate that there is any human right violation and the police have taken appropriate legal action for maintaining peace. Admittedly, against the father and brother of the petitioner there are several criminal cases registered at Dindoshi police station and Sakinaka police station. 5. Learned A.P.P. has drawn our attention to the complaint forwarded by the petitioner to Human Rights Commission. In the complaint there is a reference to the incident dated 22nd August, 2007. It is stated that the petitioner had approached police station. However, there was a compromise between the petitioner’s family and the family of respondent nos. 4 and 5 and therefore no FIR was registered. It is not stated in this complaint that because of this incident the petitioner suffered a miscarriage. Mr.Amol Shirke P.S.I. from Dindoshi police - 3 - station is present in the court. He confirms that there was a compromise between the parties and therefore complaint was not investigated. 6. There can be no dispute about the legal principle that if an FIR discloses cognizable offence, the police have to register an offence. However, in this case, we find that indeed there was a compromise and compromise purshis is annexed as Exhibit F to the petition. We find that it is signed by the petitioner and the petitioner’s husband. It appears to us that in view of this compromise police have not taken any action on the petitioner’s complaint. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the compromise was not genuine. The petitioner was forced into entering the compromise. He submitted that the incident is dated 22nd August, 2007. The petitioner filed complaint to the Human Rights Commission on 25th February, 2008. The Human Rights Commission gave its decision on 6th February, 2010 and thereafter the present petition was filed. He submitted that therefore the delay cannot be taken against her. 8. We cannot fault the police because they did not take any action on the petitioner’s complaint. They did so because of the compromise. At the same time it appears - 4 - that the petitioner did not approach this court earlier because she was waiting for Human Rights Commission’s order. In the circumstances of the case considering the fact that according to the petitioner kerosene was poured on her six month old child and the petitioner is stated to have suffered a miscarriage, we are of the opinion that despite the fact the incident is dated 22nd August, 2007 the police should look into the petitioner’s complaint, and take action on it in accordance with Full Bench judgment of this court in SANDEEP SHUKLA VS.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2009 (1) MLJ 97 Learned A.P.P. Stat4es that the police shall do so. 9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and this order of ours should not be treated as a direction given by us to register a case against respondents 4 and 5. Decision in that regard may be taken independently by the police. 10. The Petition is disposed of. SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J - 5 -