1 Cr. WP 2827/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2827OF 2009 Vikas Rajkumar Ganeriwal .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A. M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for Respondent No.2. Mr. Yagnik for the State. CORAM : MR. B. H. MARLAPALLE & MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATE : 14th July, 2010. P.C. 1. We heard Mr. Saraogi the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Ponda learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Yagnik learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioner’s main grievance in this Petition is that the Police Station issued identity card to Respondent No.2 identifying him as a friend and informer of the police and Respondent No.2 has misused the said identity card. It is further alleged that under the garb of being a friend of police, Respondent No.2 has physically assaulted the Petitioner while he was in custody of Oshiwara police station and that Respondent No.2 has been placing himself as a Police Officer and terrorizing and pressurizing the Petitioner. 2 Cr. WP 2827/09 3. Initially the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Mumbai filed affidavit-in-reply and subsequently the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai also filed his affidavit. So far as the issue of identity card as a friend and informer of police is concerned, it has been stated in the affidavit filed by the Joint Commissioner of Police as well as the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai that such cards could not have been issued by the concerned police station and a circular has been issued on 11.12.2009 directing all the police stations not to issue such identity cards in future. 4. In addition, a show cause notice was issued to Mr. Aziz Gulab Manjardekar Police Inspector of Sakinaka Police Station who had issued identity card to Respondent No.2 and after his reply to the show cause notice, he has been awarded punishment of stoppage of increment of one year. Additional Commissioner of Police, West Region, Mumbai was also directed to conduct an inquiry into the alleged incident at Oshiwara Police Station as it was contended by the Petitioner that he came to be arrested by the said police station and Respondent No.2 under the garb of acting as a friend of police has assaulted and claimed that he had the powers to interrogate an accused under arrest. The inquiry has been completed and on 12.07.2010 the Additional Commissioner of police has submitted the report and the said report finds fault with the actions of Shri. Padavi, the Assistant Police Inspector attached to Oshiwara Police Station. In the said report, it has been recommended to deny further increments for 3 Cr. WP 2827/09 three years to Shri. Padvi and the report further recommends other suitable action against Police Head Constable Yashwant Patil. 5. In view of the above action taken by the Police Commissioner, prayer Clauses (a) & (b) do not survive and prayer Clause (c) seeks directions for appropriate action against Respondent No.2 after conducting an inquiry. 6. As noted earlier, the Petitioner has alleged that Respondent No.2 under the garb of being a friend of police had physically assaulted while he was in police custody at Oshiwara Police Station and when he questioned the authority of Respondent No.2, he was informed that Respondent no.2 that he has authority to interrogate the accused as he has been appointed as an agent by the Police Authority. It is further alleged that Respondent No.2 has terrorized the Petitioner. 7. If Respondent No.2 has acted in any manner amounting to an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is to file a private complaint before the competent Court or lodge a complaint against Respondent No.2 with the police station. The record does not indicate that the Petitioner has taken any of these steps. The allegations that Respondent No.2 got the Petitioner arrested does not impress us and it is clear from the record that in C.C. No. 33/Misc/09 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 4 Cr. WP 2827/09 directed investigation by the police. Consequently an FIR came to be registered against the Petitioner and thereafter he was taken in custody by the police. Mr. Saraogi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the affidavit placed before us today and filed by one Shri. Rakesh Murarka and Shri Tushar Chandradas. If any of applicants as well as the Petitioner have any grievance that Respondent No.2 indulges in any act punishable under the Indian Penal Code, their remedy lies to lodge a complaint to the concerned police station or to file a private complaint before the competent Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. 8. In our view nothing further survives in this Petition. Hence the Writ Petition is disposed. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.) ( B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. )