Mr. Qamruddin Shaikh v. PSI Kamlakar Mahadev Fadke & Ors.

Mr. Qamruddin Shaikh .. Petitioner Vs.

1. PSI Kamlakar Mahadev Fadke and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sanjay Bhatia for petitioner. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. JULY 15, 2010. P.C.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Prabhakar R. Satam, Assistant Commissioner of Police.

As per the petitioner, in the night of 20/2/2008, he along with his brother Nawab and two friends, Mohd. Jafruddin Khan and James Godwin had dinner at hotel Zakas in Dharavi area and when they came out at about 12 O’clock, respondent no.1 was manning beat No. 3 of Dharavi Police Station, just next door, called him and abused and threatened him. It is further his case that respondent no.1 was drunk and he was detained for about half an hour. Respondent No. 1 released him around 1 a.m. and immediately thereafter he approached respondent no.2 with a complaint against respondent no.1, but respondent no.2 did not take any action. On the next day i.e. on 21/2/2008 he submitted a representation to respondent no.3 who called respondent no.1 and warned him not to misbehave with the members of the public. He has submitted representations, the last such representations being of 7/4/2008 and 5/8/2008 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone -V. His prayer in this petition is for directions to register an FIR against respondent nos.1 to 3 and for further orders to punish the said respondents in accordance with law.

We have noted that this petition has been moved before us on or about 15/10/2009 i.e. almost after one year and six months of the petitioner’s representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. He had the remedy to approach to the nearest Court of Metropolitan Magistrate and move a private complaint. He did not do so and belatedly this petition has been filed. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police clearly states that the enquiry into the allegations of misbehaviour on the part of respondent no.1 did not reveal any such incident and in any case, as per the petitioner’s own contentions, respondent no.3 had warned respondent no.1 on 21/2/2008 itself in his presence.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to show our indulgence in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence the petition is rejected. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.)

(B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)