Nilesh Namdeo Gurav v. The State of Maharashtra

Mr.A.M.Saraogi, for petitioner. -- Ms.Usha Kejriwal, APP for respondent State. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr.A.M.Saraogi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Usha Kejriwal, learned APP for respondent – State. 2] Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally. 2 cri-WP-1044-11.sxw 3] By this petition, the petitioner has challenged notice dated 15th March, 2011 issued by the Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Santacruz Division, Mumbai under Section 56 (1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short “the Act”). Mr.Saraogi contended that earlier, respondent no.1 issued notice on 16th February, 2009 under Section 56 (1) (a) (b) of the Act. However, the said notice was subsequently, dropped. On 2nd May, 2009 another notice under Section 56 (1) (a) (b) was issued which was also dropped. Pursuant to notice under Section 56 (1) (a) (b) issued on 2nd May, 2009, no action was taken against the petitioner.

He invited my attention to the complaint made by the petitioner on 17th March, 2011 and 25th March, 2011 to the police and lastly, complaint dated 23rd January, 2008 to the Municipal Commissioner of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation wherein, he had made grievance about unauthorised construction carried out by some persons. He submitted that the present show cause notice dated 15th March, 2011 is based upon alleged offences which were covered by earlier notices. In so far as the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner covered by the present notice are concerned, he submitted that the complainants therein are the same persons against whom the petitioner filed various complaints about unauthorised 3 cri-WP-1044-11.sxw construction. He further invited my attention to the amendment carried out in the present petition wherein, respondent nos.2 and 3 are added. By that amendment, a grievance is made by the petitioner about mala fide acts on the part of respondent nos.2 and 3.

He, therefore, submitted that this is a fit case for quashing the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Section 56 (1) (a) (b) read with 59 of the Act. 4] On the other hand, Ms.Usha Kejriwal submitted that pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner has filed reply. The statements of other two persons were recorded on 19th July, 2011. In so far as the offences covered by earlier notices are concerned, out of seven cases, in respect of two cases C.R.’s are lodged viz.C.R. No.201 of 2007 is lodged under Section 323, 324, 504 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and C.R.No.580 of 2008 is lodged under Section 324, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. Subsequent to this, C.R.No.492 of 2010 is registered against the petitioner under Section 325, 504 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 4 cri-WP-1044-11.sxw 5] Ms.Kejriwal further submitted that the petitioner made complaints to the Police Authorities. He filed reply as also his statement was recorded. At that time, he did not make any grievance against the Police Officers who are added as respondent nos.2 and

The petition was amended on 6th August, 2011 and police Officers have been impleaded as party respondent nos.2 and 3. She further submitted that the present show cause notice recites earlier cases filed by the petitioner and is based upon the cases which were recently lodged against the petitioner. 6] I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the show cause notice is issued on 15th March, 2011 under Section 56 (1) (a) (b) of the Act against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had filed reply to the said show cause notice and that the statement of the petitioner and two other persons have been recorded on 19th July,

2011. I, therefore, do not find this to be an appropriate case to interfere with the action of the respondents in issuing show cause notice. In so far as the case made out against respondent nos.2 and 3 is concerned, prima facie, I find that the reply filed by the petitioner 5 cri-WP-1044-11.sxw and the statement recorded on his behalf do not indicate any case as sought to be made out in the present petition. The reply was filed on 19th July, 2011 wherein also, no case was made out against respondent nos.2 and 3. Even the complaints made to the Police Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Police do not indicate that the petitioner has made any grievance against respondent nos.2 and 3. I, therefore, do not find this to be an appropriate case for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7] In the result, petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

[R.G.KETKAR, J.]