ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2074 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2074 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2074 OF 2008 Sailesh Liladhar Bhatia ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.Zha i/by M/s. Law Global, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & : BILAL NAZKI & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ. V.MOHTA, JJ. V.MOHTA, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. This Writ Petition has been heard at length on three occasions. But we do not find any merit so that the notice should be issued to the Respondents. 2. The following prayers have been made in the Petition. "(a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to intiate and / or launch prosecution against the Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 for their having committed offences punishable under Sections 181, 182, 193 and 211 of Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy; ( 2 ) (b) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to appoint some higher ranks police officers like IG / DIG to investigate into the matter and this Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to monitor the said investigation by directing the said officer to submit his report in this Hon’ble Court; (c) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 to pay compensation to the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.1 crores or such other amount as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; (d) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to take action against the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on administrative side apart from prosecuting them for their having committed offences punishable under Sections 181, 182, 193 and 211 of Indian Penal Code; (e) any other further order and/ or direction may be given by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. It appears that in 2003, the complaint has been filed against the Petitioner before the learned JMFC, Jodhpur in Rajasthan. The learned Magistrate at Rajasthan referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") and the police initiated enquiry in terms of the order of the learned Magistrate. 4. The Petitioner was arrested in Mumbai. The Petitioner failed to secure an order of bail from ( 3 ) JMFC, Jodhpur. The Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 6th May, 2008 quashed the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner. One of the findings given by the Rajasthan High Court was that the Police had investigated the matter and final report had not been filed. But the Police was of the opinion that a Criminal case was not made out against the Petitioner. Therefore, prima facie, no fault can be attributed to the Police Officers for having initiated the Criminal investigation against the Petitioner which had been done by the Police because of the order of the Magistrate. Therefore, on this ground, we cannot find any fault with the Respondents, who are Police Officers of the Rajasthan State. 5. The Second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner was that the Petitioner was arrested in Mumbai during the investigation of the case by the Rajasthan police in the year 2003. He was tortured and also unlawfully confined for 5 days before taking him to the Rajasthan. This happened in the year 2003 and till the year 2008 no grievance was made against the alleged wrongful confinement or torture. When the Petitioner moved to ( 4 ) the High Court of Rajasthan in the year 2005, by filing the Criminal Misc. Petition No.61 of 2005 even at that moment, he did not make any such grievance against the Police Officers before the Rajasthan High Court. After more than 5 years, for the first time, the grievance is made against the police officers that the Petitioner was kept in wrongful confinement and was tortured. Therefore, on this ground also the Writ Petition cannot be entertained. 6. So far as the compensation regarding wrongful confinement, that relief can also not be granted. We have no doubt in our mind that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Writ Petition as no relief is claimed against the State of Maharashtra and in fact nothing has happened in the State of Maharashtra. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra & Ors. & Ors. & Ors. reported in 2000 (7) S.C.C. 640 2000 (7) S.C.C. 640 2000 (7) S.C.C. 640 suggesting that if a part cause of action had arisen in the State of Maharashtra, this Court in terms of ( 5 ) Article 226 sub-clause 2 has a jurisdiction. We have no doubt in our mind that in a particular case, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority, is within the jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, but in the present case, we do not find any part of cause of action arisen in the State of Maharashtra. 8. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the Petition, it is accordingly dismissed. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (BILAL (BILAL (BILAL NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.) NAZKI, J.)