1 wp1009.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1009 of 2010 Mr. Rajendrakumar Kalicharan Varma ....Petitioner Vs. Anil Balkisan Bhangadiya & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar-advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.B. Kocheta-advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. K.V.Saste-APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 13, 2010. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents on record. 2. The grievance in this Petition is about illegal arrest of the Petitioner between 13th January, 2009 till 16th March, 2009. The Petitioner was arrested in connection with offence registered by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 307, 34 of IPC and 3(25) of the Arms Act. 3. The moot question is whether the arrest of Petitioner by the Respondent 2 wp1009.10 No. 3 pursuant to the said complaint was inappropriate. On perusing the complaint, we noticed that the Respondent No.1 in the complaint itself mentioned that he had suspicion against the Petitioner before us. Besides, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of Darshan S. Pal and Dinesh Poojari on 11th January, 2009. The statement of both these witnesses indicated involvement of the Petitioner in commission of the offence. On the basis of this material, the Investigating Officer proceeded to arrest the Petitioner on 13th January, 2009. Indeed, the Petitioner was granted bail on 13th March, 2009 and came to be released on 16th March, 2009. It is also correct that later on order came to be passed on 24th April, 2009 on the basis of report submitted by the police officer ( Respondent No. 3) that no offence was made out against the Petitioner. That report was submitted on 20th April, 2009 and order was passed by the concerned Court on 24th April, 2009. The fact remains that from the material on record it is not possible to accept the grievance of the Petitioner that his initial arrest on 13th January, 2009 and continued detention till 16th March, 2009 was illegal as such. That was founded on the material which was available with the Investigating Officer at the relevant point of time. 4. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in taking the view that there is no illegality either in the initial arrest of the Petitioner or his continued detention 3 wp1009.10 till 16th March, 2009. 5. The second shade of the same argument is that in any case the Complainant is responsible for the situation as false complaint was made by him against the Petitioner. In that, no material was collected by the Investigating officer during the course of investigation to indicate the complicity of the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. This argument has been countered by the Counsel for the Respondent No. 1-Complainant on the ground that the Complainant was not aware about the order dated 24th April, 2009 passed by the concerned Court on the report filed by the police official dated 20th April, 2009. The Complainant was under the impression that the Petitioner has been released on bail on account of failure to submit charge sheet within the statutory period. Since the position now stated by the Petitioner has come to the notice of the Complainant, the Complainant would take steps to move the concerned Court for appropriate remedy available in law. Our attention is invited to the statement of Darshan S. Pal as well as the statement of the Complainant which mentions the involvement of the Petitioner. According to Respondent No. 1-Complainant inspite of this material available on record, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file report dated 20th April, 2009 for the reasons best known to him. As a matter of fact, the material so collected was 4 wp1009.10 good enough to file the charge sheet against the Petitioner. It was argued by the Counsel for the Petitioner that notice was issued to the Respondent No. 1- Complainant on 22nd June, 2009 and only after service of this Petition, the Respondent No. 1 has filed reply affidavit on 5th September, 2010 stating that the same was being filed without prejudice to the right of the Respondent no. 1 to pursue appropriate remedy. 6. For the time being, we express no opinion on this argument of the Complainant or that of the Petitioner. Suffice it to observe that if the Complainant succeeds in persuading the concerned Court to reconsider the order dated 24th April, 2009 and/or to issue direction for further investigation if the fact situation of the case so warrants, it would be premature for us to opine that the complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioner was false. It is a different matter that if the Respondent No. 1 is unsuccessful in his attempt to reopen the criminal action against the Petitioner, whether the Petitioner should pursue appropriate remedy against Respondent No.1 or otherwise, is a question, which can be considered at the appropriate stage in the concerned proceedings. We express no opinion on that. 5 wp1009.10 7. For the reasons record herein before, this Petition deserves to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)