1 wp-1797-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1797 OF 2011 Charanjeet Chanderpal @ Chander Kumar Gehi ...Petitioner Versus The Advocate General, State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr.Charanjeet Chanderpal, petitioner in person. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. July 7, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Chanderpal, the party in person. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in terms of writ of mandamus or certiorari or prohibition or directions of like nature: 2 wp-1797-2011 “(a) The Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra – Respondent no.1, to decide application at Exhibit Q, which shall be subject to judicial review of this Honourable Court. (b) Alternatively, in the event, the Advocate General does not decide Exhibit Q favourably, this Honourable Court may exercise powers of Judicial Review or such powers, directing the Advocate General to enforce Maharashtra Vexatious Proceedings Law against Anil Gehi, Advocate Mahesh Vaswani and Advocate Shivkumar Jagdish Chander Khera and their representatives to restrain from making complaints / litigations against the petitioner and his relatives without leave of this Honorable Court. (c) The 8th Metropolitan Magistrate to accept the report of the Azad Maidan Police Station i.e. Exhibit P and to prosecute the offenders referred to therein in accordance with law. (d) The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa may decide all complaints filed by 3 wp-1797-2011 Respondent No.4-7 or their representatives against the Petitioner and vice-versa, collectively as group matter, through any one member of the Council if any, in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. (e) Issuance of suo motu criminal contempt notice to Respondent No.4-7 and proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act 1971 scandalizing the Court proceedings and administration of justice. (f) The Commissioner of Police to issue an administrative notice to all police stations that in case any complaint whether directly or through a Magisterial Court has been received by any of the police stations filed by Anil Gehi, Mahesh Vaswani or S.J. Khera or their representatives against petitioner or his relatives, then in that event the respective officers may report the same to this Honorable Court and the respective officers may be informed of looking into the matter thoroughly before taking any kind of impulsive steps, and the same be reported to this Honorable Court. 4 wp-1797-2011 (g) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may also be inter alia given appropriate administrative directions, inter alia, in line with prayer clause e, hereinabove. (h) The Respondent No.4 to 6, to disclose if they have filed any further complaints, litigations, etc. against the petitioner or his relatives, etc.” 2. So far as prayer clauses (a) and (b) are concerned, Mr.Chanderpal has invited our attention to his application dated 16/6/2011 addressed to the learned Advocate General for the State of Maha4rashtra. By the said application he has approached the learned Advocate General to initiate appropriate steps to file an application under Section 2 of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 against respondent nos.4 to 7 so as to prohibit them from filing any cases against the petitioner. We have gone through the scheme of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 (for short “the said Act”) which has in all four Sections. Section 2 enables the Advocate General to move an application before this Court to order that no proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be 5 wp-1797-2011 instituted by any person in any Court and that any legal proceedings instituted by him in any Court before the order shall not be continued by him. Such an order to be passed by the High Court is subject to its satisfaction that any person has habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, civil or criminal, in any Court or Courts whether against the same person or against different persons. It is also clear from the scheme of Section 2(1) of the said Act that unless an opportunity of hearing is granted to such person, no order can be passed prohibiting from filing cases. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 states that no such leave shall be given unless the High Court or the Judge, as the case may be, is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is prima facie ground for the proceedings. Section 3 of the said Act states that any proceedings instituted or continued in any Court by a person against whom an order under sub- section (1) of Section 2 has been made, without obtaining the leave referred in that section, shall be dismissed by the Court and Section 4 of the said Act is a saving clause. Thus the scheme of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 does not contemplate a right vested in favour of a private party like the petitioner to apply to the Advocate General for submitting an application under Section 2 of the 6 wp-1797-2011 said Act and that he is obliged to act upon such an application either way. If the said special statute has not cast a specific duty on the Advocate General to entertain and decide an application by third party, obviously a writ of mandamus or certiorari cannot be issued against the Advocate General and, therefore, prayer clauses (a) and (b) are obviously beyond the realm of our jurisdiction. 3. Coming to prayer clause (c), it is seen from the record that on or about 13th June 2011 the Investigating Officer of Azad Maidan Police Station has submitted B-Summary report into the complaint submitted by Mrs.Dharini Narendra Nagda (Respondent no.7) against the petitioner. Undoubtedly, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to whom the said report has been submitted is bound to pass further appropriate orders either accepting or rejecting the said B-Summary report and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the complainant. 4. So far as prayer clause (d) is concerned, admittedly as of now the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa has not taken any adverse action against the petitioner on the alleged complaint filed by respondent nos.4 to 7 or their representatives against him. Prayer clause (e) of the petition 7 wp-1797-2011 is for issuance of suo motu criminal contempt notice to the respondent nos.4 to 7 and the same has not been pressed in as much as the petitioner desires to take appropriate steps in that behalf by following the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. The petitioner then invited our attention to prayer clause (f) for a direction to the Commissioner of Police to issue administrative notice to all police stations that in case any complaint is filed by respondent nos.4 to 7 or any one of them against the petitioner, then they should report the same to this Court. We are afraid, the relief sought for in this prayer is beyond the scope of Criminal Procedure Code and if any complaint is filed against the petitioner with any police station, Section 154 of Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure to be followed and the view of this Court in a catena of decisions including the Full Bench decision in the case of Panchabhai P. Butani v. State of Maharashtra [2001 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 1] is clear in laying down the guidelines to deal with the complaints and steps to be taken under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. 6. We are, therefore, satisfied that this petition cannot be entertained for the reliefs prayed for. The petitioner at this stage sought leave to 8 wp-1797-2011 withdraw the petition. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)