(1) WP 3558/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 3558 OF 2011 Shaila R. Lad & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Petitioners present. Sr. Inspector of Tardeo Police Station present. Mrs. S. V. Sonawane, AGP for the State. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date of reserving the Order : 07 December, 2011. Date of pronouncing the Order : 23 December, 2011. ORDER 1. The Petitioners are two sisters. The letters of the Petitioners addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice have been accepted as above Writ Petition. The Writ Petition requires certain directions to be passed against the police personnel of Tardeo Police Station within the jurisdiction of which Police Station the Petitioners reside. 2. The Petitioners have had certain disputes and quarrels with their neighbours in their building and certain persons in their locality. The Petitioners (2) WP 3558/11 allege day to day harassment from those persons whom the Petitioners call “criminals”. The Petitioners have themselves stated that they have made complaints to various authorities without result. 3. Their complaints are that the Petitioners be made jobless and to see the Petitioner No.2 cannot be married off. The Petitioners claim that the certain builders are involved in the harassment. The Petitioners have relied upon several orders passed by the Sessions Court at Mumbai as also by the Division Bench of this Court. The Petitioners have not been granted relief. 4. It would have to be seen whether the reliefs can be granted to the Petitioners. The reliefs would be granted if any cognizable offence is disclosed for which an FIR is filed and which the Petitioners desire to prosecute to its end. 5. The harassment by the members of certain Tamhankar family was initially alleged by the Petitioners. The relevant police personnel agreed to render assistance to the Petitioners. The Petitioners were directed to lodge their complaint. The Petitioners made complaints by way of several letters. The Petitioners have produced before me their handwritten letters, the receipts of several of which have been acknowledged. (3) WP 3558/11 6. I have gone through those letters. The letters do not disclose any cognizable offence. 7. During argument the Petitioners claimed that the harassment is so gross that several sexual innuendos have been made against the Petitioners and pasted even on the main door of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have also argued that they are the only family who have opposed the redevelopment and reconstruction of their building due to which the builders are sending gundas to their house to harass the Petitioners. No further particulars are given by the Petitioners about the harassment. The Petitioners have shown certain indecent and scandalous emails addressed to the second Petitioner who is unmarried. The Petitioners claim that these are sent so that Petitioner No.2 cannot be married. It would be impossible to register an offence against any particular person which can be cognizable by the Court and which can be prosecuted by the Petitioners. The Petitioners are informed that for the marriage of Petitioner No.2 they independently access the website relating to matrimonial match-making being www.bharatmatrimony.com. 8. The Court suggested that it would be in the interest of the Petitioners to see reason and co- operate in the redevelopment of the property in which they live and which has been agreed by all except their family. Of course, that would be upon the (4) WP 3558/11 builders following due legal process for redevelopment and offering the Petitioners transit and permanent alternate accommodation to the extent of the area in their occupation in accordance with law. The Petitioners shall be entitled to file any Writ Petition to claim any justiciable reliefs in that regard. 9. Aside from the aforesaid observations there shall be no other order in above Petition. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)