1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.757/2008 Sau. Chanda Deorao Kurwade and another Vs. State of Mah. and others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's order Judge's orders and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram : A.P. Lavande & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. Dated : 20th April, 2009. Heard Mr. Kariya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Doifode, learned APP for the respondents. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek direction against respondents 2 to 4 to register F.I.R. against four police personnel and further direction against respondent no.2 to take departmental action against the said persons. The petitioners also seek further direction that the investigation of the crime be handed over to State C.I.D. It is the case of the petitioners that on 23/9/2008 at about 6.30 p.m. four police officials namely Janardhan Dhote, Sandeep Ekbote, Vijay 2 Dhole and another police man came to their field at Bodad fully drunk. Janardhan Dhote demanded chicken from petitioner no.1 and upon refusal he assaulted respondent no.2. It is further case of the petitioners that the said police officials outraged the modesty of petitioner no.1 and thereafter all of then ran away from the filed. According to the petitioners, F.I.R. was lodged at Wardha Police Station on 24.9.2008 but since no action was taken by the Officer of Incharge Police Station, the petitioners are compelled to file the present petition. Respondent no.2 has filed affidavit dated 19.1.2009 which discloses that the report lodged by the petitioners has been investigated by the Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha and it reveals that the report filed by the petitioners has no substance. The investigation further reveals that on 23.9.2008 at the relevant time the police officials against whom the report has been filed were on Bandobast duty and as such they could not have been at the place alleged by the petitioners. The investigation further discloses that between 1998 to 2007 there were 91 cases registered against petitioner no.2 under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The investigation further reveals that in the year 2005 two cases under the Bombay Gambling Act registered against petitioner 3 no.1. Mr. Kariya, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent no.2 - Superintendent of Police is a party to the petition, and as such he himself ought to have investigated the matter and the investigation carried out through S.D.P.O. is without any authority. He further submitted that respondent no.2 has tried to protect the police officials against whom report has been filed by the petitioners and this is a fit case in which independent agency must be directed to investigate into the allegations made by the petitioners against the police officials. Per contra, Mr. Doidofde, learned APP for the respondents placing reliance upon the affidavit of respondent no.2 submitted that false report has been filed against police officials since petitioner no. 2 has been carrying out illegal activities. He further submitted that in order to prevent the police officials from discharging their duties false report has been filed against the police officials. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of 4 extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have no reason to disbelieve the statements made in the affidavit of respondent no.2 which discloses that the report filed by the petitioners is without any merit. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Kariya that since respondent no.2 is a party to the petition, he himself ought to have investigated into the allegations made against the police officials. Respondent no.2, in our opinion, was justified in directing the Sub Divisional Police Officer to investigate into the allegations made against police officials and to act upon the report submitted by the S.D.P.O. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition. Consequently, the petition is summarily rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.