Dismissed

Shakuntala Shetty and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Nov 2007WP/1888/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the Bombay High Court rejected a plea seeking directions to register an offence based on rape and prostitution allegations. The Court held that competent officers have a right to conduct preliminary inquiries to ascertain if allegations have substance, citing the Katochdecision, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; respondents advised to file complaint before Magistrate.

Shakuntala Shetty and Anr. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 .{1}.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1888 OF 2007

¶4

 Smt.Shakuntala Shetty
 and Anr. ..Petitioners.
 Versus

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent.

¶6

 Mr.S.S.Sayyed, Adv. for the Petitioners.
 Smt.P.H.Kantharia, APP, for the State.

¶7

CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶8

DATED : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2007.
 P.C.:-

¶9

 1. Heard.

¶10

 2. This is a Writ Petition seeking directions to

¶11

 register an offence in view of applications dated
 15.3.2007 & 16.3.2007. Application dated 16.3.2007

¶12

 is addressed to the Home Minister of the State of
 Maharashtra while application dated 15.3.2007 is
 addressed to Senior Inspector of Police, Dr.D.P.Marg
 Police Station, Bombay. Both the applications show a
 grievance made by nearabout 83 ladies to the effect
 that one Mr.Thomas is committing rape on them,
 collecting moneys from them and equally the brokerage
 commission and they have been induced and forced into

¶13

 .{2}.

¶14

 the prostitution. It appears that since the

¶15

 complaint was not registered on the basis of these
 applications, the petitioners have approached this
 Court. After issuance of the notice, at one stage it
 was noticed that there was no progress in the
 investigation. However, today the learned APP has
 shown us a file of preliminary investigation carried
 out by the police. The police have recorded
 statements of nearly 92-93 ladies who are allegedly
 signatories to the said complaint. However, on
 perusal of the statements, we find that the offence
 as made out in the complaint addressed to the police
 station and/or to the Home Minister has not been made
 out and, therefore, further investigation and/or
 filing of the charge-sheet and/or registration of the
 crime has not taken place.

¶16

 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners tried
 to rely upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case
 of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR
1992 SC Page-604 to contend that once an information
 in respect of a cognizable offence has been received,
 it is not open for the investigating officer to find
 out whether the complaint is reliable, genuine or

¶17

 .{3}.

¶18

 credible, and then to proceed for an investigation.

¶19

 It is obligatory for him to register the crime. No
 doubt in the present matter the complaints, referred
 to above, discloses a cognizable offence. However,
 complaint dated 16.3.2007 was not addressed to the
 police station it was addressed to the Home Minister
 and, therefore, he is not supposed to register the
 offence, as at the most he is supposed to enquire
 into the matter. Further it appears that even though
 another complaint has been submitted to the Senior
 Inspector of Police, yet the offence has not been
 registered. But it appears that after filing of the
 Petition the enquiry has been conducted by the police
 officers, as stated above, and the enquiry discloses
 that no offence is made out. The ratio of Bhajan

¶20

Lal’s case (supra) will not be appropriate in the
 facts and circumstances of the case in view of a
 recent decision of the Supreme Court in Appeal (Crl.)
 No.1432 of 2007 dated 12.10.2007 in the case of
Rajinder Singh Katoch Vs. Chandigarh Administration
& Ors., wherein it was observed as under :-

¶21

 " Although the officer in charge of a
 police station is legally bound to

¶22

 .{4}.

¶23

 register a first information report in
 terms of Section 154 of the Code of
 Criminal Procedure, if the allegations
 made by them gives rise to an offence
 which can be investigated without
 obtaining any permission from the
 Magistrate concerned; the same by
 itself, however, does not take away
 the right of the competent officer to
 make a preliminary enquiry, in a given
 case, in order to find out as to
 whether the first information sought
 to be lodged had any substance or not.
 .."

¶24

 . It was further observed as under :-

¶25

 " .. In any event, in a case of this
 nature where the authorities bound by
 law have already investigated into the

¶26

 matter and found that the allegations
 made by the appellant against
 respondent No.4 were not correct, it
 would not be proper for us to issue

¶27

 .{5}.

¶28

 any direction to the respondent Nos.1
 to 3 to lodge a first information
 report. .."

¶29

 . Thereafter after considering the decision in
 the case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
& Ors. reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677 it was further
 observed that :-

¶30

 "We are not oblivious to the decision
 of this Court in Ramesh Kumari V.
 State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. [(2006) 2
 SCC 677] wherein such a statutory duty
 has been found in the Police Officer.
 But, as indicated hereinabove, in an
 appropriate case, the Police Officers
 also have a duty to make a preliminary
 enquiry so as to find out as to
 whether allegations made had any
 substance or not."

¶31

 . Thereafter reference was made to the decision

¶32

 in the case of Shashikant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Ors. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 630

¶33

 .{6}.

¶34

 wherein it is observed that evidently it was within
 the province of the police to commence a
 preliminary inquiry.

¶35

 4. In view of above, we do not find any substance
 in the submission made by the learned Advocate for
 the Petitioners. We, therefore, are not in favour
 of entertaining the Petition. However, if the
 petitioners still feel that they have to ventilate
 their grievance, alternate remedy of filing a
 complaint before the Magistrate is available to
 them. In view of this, we refrain to entertain the

¶36

 Petition. Petition is hereby rejected.

¶37

[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.]

Shakuntala Shetty and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Shetty and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnukumar P. Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shej Jamnya Bhosale

Yashwant Gyanba Nanaware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Vinayak Yeragi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shoeb Hashim Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pandit Prasad Balkrishna Joshi @ Nandu Maharaj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.