1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2721 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2721 OF 2005 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2721 OF 2005 Mrs.Natty Albert Rodrigues & Ors. ...Petitioners Mrs.Natty Albert Rodrigues & Ors. ...Petitioners Mrs.Natty Albert Rodrigues & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Vs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Mr.O.R.Tiwari for Petitioner Mr.O.R.Tiwari for Petitioner Mr.O.R.Tiwari for Petitioner Mr. A.S. Gadkari A.P.P. for the State Mr. A.S. Gadkari A.P.P. for the State Mr. A.S. Gadkari A.P.P. for the State CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 31ST JANUARY, 2006 DATED: 31ST JANUARY, 2006 DATED: 31ST JANUARY, 2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the 1. Heard Mr. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the 1. Heard Mr. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We have also perused the averments and Petitioner. We have also perused the averments and Petitioner. We have also perused the averments and the prayers made in the Petition as well as the the prayers made in the Petition as well as the the prayers made in the Petition as well as the affidavit filed by Mr.Prasad M. Khandekar, Police affidavit filed by Mr.Prasad M. Khandekar, Police affidavit filed by Mr.Prasad M. Khandekar, Police Inspector presently attached to Dadar Police Station. Inspector presently attached to Dadar Police Station. Inspector presently attached to Dadar Police Station. 2. It is evident that the petitioner has already 2. It is evident that the petitioner has already 2. It is evident that the petitioner has already approached the Maharashtra State Human Rights approached the Maharashtra State Human Rights approached the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission in case No.444/16/05/14032 dated 2nd Commission in case No.444/16/05/14032 dated 2nd Commission in case No.444/16/05/14032 dated 2nd November 2005 and the gist of her complaints is : November 2005 and the gist of her complaints is : November 2005 and the gist of her complaints is : (a). On 10th February 2005 S.I. Sakpal and (a). On 10th February 2005 S.I. Sakpal and (a). On 10th February 2005 S.I. Sakpal and five Policemen of Dadar Police Station five Policemen of Dadar Police Station five Policemen of Dadar Police Station man-handled her and her two sisters and man-handled her and her two sisters and man-handled her and her two sisters and detained all of them at the Police Station detained all of them at the Police Station detained all of them at the Police Station till 10.00 p.m. as she had complained against till 10.00 p.m. as she had complained against till 10.00 p.m. as she had complained against S.I. Sakpal. S.I. Sakpal. S.I. Sakpal. 2 (b). D.C.P. Mr. Dumbre, ACP Yadav, forced (b). D.C.P. Mr. Dumbre, ACP Yadav, forced (b). D.C.P. Mr. Dumbre, ACP Yadav, forced her to compromise with her neighbour Mrs. her to compromise with her neighbour Mrs. her to compromise with her neighbour Mrs. Sabrina Yeole with whom she has a long Sabrina Yeole with whom she has a long Sabrina Yeole with whom she has a long standing dispute and also to withdraw her standing dispute and also to withdraw her standing dispute and also to withdraw her grievances against aforesaid five policemen or grievances against aforesaid five policemen or grievances against aforesaid five policemen or else chapter proeedings would be initiated. else chapter proeedings would be initiated. else chapter proeedings would be initiated. (c). Her sister Ms. Rosaline Fernandez was (c). Her sister Ms. Rosaline Fernandez was (c). Her sister Ms. Rosaline Fernandez was brought by force from her house to the office brought by force from her house to the office brought by force from her house to the office of A.C.P. Dadar Division Mr. Yadav and of A.C.P. Dadar Division Mr. Yadav and of A.C.P. Dadar Division Mr. Yadav and notice regarding chapter proceedings was notice regarding chapter proceedings was notice regarding chapter proceedings was served upon her and signature obtained. served upon her and signature obtained. served upon her and signature obtained. A notice regarding chapter proceedings was served upon A notice regarding chapter proceedings was served upon A notice regarding chapter proceedings was served upon her and her signature was obtained. her and her signature was obtained. her and her signature was obtained. 3. It appears that the above said complaint 3. It appears that the above said complaint 3. It appears that the above said complaint registered with the State Human Rights Ccmmission is registered with the State Human Rights Ccmmission is registered with the State Human Rights Ccmmission is under investigation and the Commissioner of Police under investigation and the Commissioner of Police under investigation and the Commissioner of Police Brihan Mumbai has filed his reply on 21st November Brihan Mumbai has filed his reply on 21st November Brihan Mumbai has filed his reply on 21st November 2005 before the Commissioner. 2005 before the Commissioner. 2005 before the Commissioner. 4. It also appears that the Petitioners have 4. It also appears that the Petitioners have 4. It also appears that the Petitioners have filed 7 complaints registered as N.C. complaints and filed 7 complaints registered as N.C. complaints and filed 7 complaints registered as N.C. complaints and mostly against the neighbours. The neighbours in turn mostly against the neighbours. The neighbours in turn mostly against the neighbours. The neighbours in turn have also filed N.C. complaints against the have also filed N.C. complaints against the have also filed N.C. complaints against the Petitioners, i.e. Nos.357/2005, 441/2005, 702/2005, Petitioners, i.e. Nos.357/2005, 441/2005, 702/2005, Petitioners, i.e. Nos.357/2005, 441/2005, 702/2005, 3 725/2005, 948/005, 1020/2005, 1068/2005 and 1094/2005. 725/2005, 948/005, 1020/2005, 1068/2005 and 1094/2005. 725/2005, 948/005, 1020/2005, 1068/2005 and 1094/2005. There are N.C. complaints also registered against the There are N.C. complaints also registered against the There are N.C. complaints also registered against the Petitioners bearing numbers 340/2005, 358/2005, Petitioners bearing numbers 340/2005, 358/2005, Petitioners bearing numbers 340/2005, 358/2005, 442/2005, 1206/2005, 2581/2005, 1638/2005 and 442/2005, 1206/2005, 2581/2005, 1638/2005 and 442/2005, 1206/2005, 2581/2005, 1638/2005 and 1859/2005. The affidavit further states that by way 1859/2005. The affidavit further states that by way 1859/2005. The affidavit further states that by way of preventive measure to prevent from any cognizable of preventive measure to prevent from any cognizable of preventive measure to prevent from any cognizable offences and breach of peace, the police had no other offences and breach of peace, the police had no other offences and breach of peace, the police had no other options but to register chapter proceeding and options but to register chapter proceeding and options but to register chapter proceeding and consequently the Special Executive Magistrate, Dadar consequently the Special Executive Magistrate, Dadar consequently the Special Executive Magistrate, Dadar Division issued notices under Section 111 of Criminal Division issued notices under Section 111 of Criminal Division issued notices under Section 111 of Criminal Procedure Code against both the parties. Procedure Code against both the parties. Procedure Code against both the parties. 5. Having considered the affidavit in reply as 5. Having considered the affidavit in reply as 5. Having considered the affidavit in reply as well as the reply submitted by the Police well as the reply submitted by the Police well as the reply submitted by the Police Commissioner, Maharashtra State we are satisfied that Commissioner, Maharashtra State we are satisfied that Commissioner, Maharashtra State we are satisfied that this Petition need not be entertained atleast at this this Petition need not be entertained atleast at this this Petition need not be entertained atleast at this stage, more so when complaints filed by the Petitioner stage, more so when complaints filed by the Petitioner stage, more so when complaints filed by the Petitioner alleging illegal behaviour of the Police Officer or alleging illegal behaviour of the Police Officer or alleging illegal behaviour of the Police Officer or illegal detention in the police station are under illegal detention in the police station are under illegal detention in the police station are under investigation by the Human Rights Commission. investigation by the Human Rights Commission. investigation by the Human Rights Commission. . The Petition is therefore, rejected. . The Petition is therefore, rejected. . The Petition is therefore, rejected. (ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)