spb/- 1 wp3226-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3226 OF 2010 Koushik Chakrabarati ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. . ... Respondents. --- Mr. Subhash Jha i/by Law Global for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & M.N.GILANI,JJ. DATE : 03rd MAY, 2011. P.C. 1 This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby directing the Respondents to register an offence on the basis of Petitioner’s complaint dated 29.9.2010, being Exhibit ‘D’ annexed herewith. b) that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to hold an enquiry as to why cognisance was not taken of the complaint dated 29.9.2010, being Exhibit `D’ annexed herewith and the responsibility be fixed spb/- 2 wp3226-2010.sxw of those police personnel who were responsible for dereliction of their duty and further appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against them; c) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to suo-moto initiate contempt proceeding against the police personnel found to be responsible for not registering an offence on the basis of the complaint dated 29.9.2010 of the petitioner, being Exhibit `D’ annexed herewith for having flouted the dicta of the apex court in the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335; 2 In an affidavit which is filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has also prayed for fresh investigation. 3 By virtue of prayer clause (a), the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, directing registration of an offence on the basis of the complaint dated 29.09.2010. It appears that an offence came to be registered on 13.02.2011 and the learned APP states on instruction that a chargesheet has been filed in the court against the wife of the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 309 of the IPC. It also appears that an offence has been registered against the petitioner at the behest of his wife punishable under section 498-A of the IPC and the chargesheet in that behalf is also submitted in the court. The relief which the petitioner has prayed vide prayer clause (a) to the petition no longer survives for consideration in the light of the fact that an offence has been registered and the chargesheet is already been submitted in the court on 6th April, spb/- 3 wp3226-2010.sxw 2011 in a Criminal Case No. 698 of 2011. 4 In respect of the reliefs, which the petitioner claims at prayer clause (b) and (c) to the petition, which are inter-alia, for taking action against the erring police officers for not having registered the offence against the wife of the petitioner on the basis of the complaint submitted by the petitioner and for initiating suo-moto contempt proceedings against the erring police officers for dis-obeying the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court for prompt registration of an offence. By prayer clause (b), the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus. It also appears from the perusal of the documents, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out to us that any attempt been made by the petitioner to point out the authority competent for taking action against those erring police officers and for taking action against the police officers for delaying and whiling the time in the registration of the offence. In the absence of any attempt being made by the petitioner and a demand having not been refused, this court would not issue a writ of mandamus, directing the authorities to take action against the concerned police officers. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have considered the explanation offered by the learned APP.. Shri Jha , the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the police authorities ought not to have been guided by the alleged statement made by the petitioner that his wife inadvertently consumed sleeping medicines as the petitioner was not present at that time. Shri Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner further urged before us that the police officers ought to have taken into consideration the MLC which was forwarded by the hospital, which spb/- 4 wp3226-2010.sxw indicated that the wife of the petitioner had attempted to commit suicide. The learned counsel for the petitioner also urged before us that the entire investigation is tainted and the investigating officer marked his time at the behest of some influential politicians and ultimately in order to implicate the petitioner an offence under section 498-A came to be registered against the petitioner. The learned APP on the other hand has pointed out to us that the petitioner himself, upon arrival of the police in the hospital, had informed that his wife had inadvertently consumed sleeping tablets. The mother-in-law of the petitioner had also given similar statement. In that light of the matter, the learned APP states that the police initially did not register an offence. Subsequently the petitioner addressed a communication in the month of July, explaining the police officers that he had given the aforesaid statement that his wife had inadvertently consumed the medicines. Several such letters came to be addressed by the petitioner to the police officer, asking for registration of an offence and ultimately, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition. The petitioner in fact contended in his communication dated 16th July, 2010 that the intention of his wife was not to commit suicide but to harass and pressurize the petitioner into signing an unfair divorce settlement. 5 We have considered the rival contentions of the petitioner as well as that of the learned APP. Initially we had asked the petitioner that he may submit a representation to the authorities for taking action against the erring police officers. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, insisted on arguing the matter and consequently, we deal with the rival contentions urged before us. The explanation offered by the spb/- 5 wp3226-2010.sxw learned APP appears to be a plausible explanation. It is true that the investigation may have been slow and may have been lackadaisical in approach but that would not indicate that the police officers were malafidely delaying the registration of the offence for the reasons best know to them. Such does not appear to be the case before us. In the circumstances, the petitioner informing the police officers that his wife had inadvertently consumed medicines and did not attempt to commit suicide would be a strong factor which would deter the police officer in registration of the offence. Such a statement coming from the husband of the lady would certainly make the police officers delay the registration of the offence. The investigation may not have been prompt in the sense the police officers may not have immediately rushed to the hospital to seize empty medicines packet from the petitioner but that would not indicate malafide on the part of the police officers in deliberately delaying registration of the offence. In that light the petitioner, is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed at prayer clause (b). Since we have answered the prayer clause (b) against the petitioner, obviously the relief of initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents also does not survive. 6 After having considered rival submissions in detail, according to us no case is made our for interference in respect of the reliefs adverted to above as also the relief of transfer of investigation. However, we do not wish to express our opinion in respect of the merits of the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to comment upon investigation which has been carried out. However on the point of malafide in the investigation, we do not consider it to be a fit case for spb/- 6 wp3226-2010.sxw transferring the investigation as the chargesheet has now been filed before the Court which is registered as a criminal case. In such circumstances, therefore, we are not inclined to grant reliefs prayed for in this petition and the petition is therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. 7 Shri Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the observations made by us in this order would not come in the way of conduct of the trial. Obviously, whatever observations have been made by us have been made touching the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this petition. In any event, the observations made by us are prima facie observations in respect of the reliefs and should not be construed as any finding on merits. [M.N.GILANI,J.] [P.V. HARDAS, J.]