Dismissed

Sau. Suman W/O. Ashok Bhusari v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2009WP/540/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition regarding a delayed inquiry into a stamp licence complaint, the court dismissed the petition but directed the Superintendent of Police to verify police station compliance with the Bombay Police Manual 1959 regarding complaint recording.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; direction given to Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar to verify procedure of recording complaints in police stations.

Sau. Suman W/O. Ashok Bhusari Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.540 OF 2009

¶4

Suman W/o. Ashok Bhusari. ... Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
& Others. ... Respondents.

¶7

Shri. Bharat R. Warma, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for respondents.

¶8

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ.

¶9

DATE: 6^th AUGUST 2009

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

1)Heard.

¶12

2)The learned counsel Shri. B.R. Warma

¶13

appearing for the petitioner raised an issue that

¶14

a stamp vendor licence was granted to one

¶15

Dnyaneshwar Joshi in the year 1990 and continued
thereafter to be renewed. In the submission of

¶16

the counsel there was no original licence granted

¶17

¶18

to Dnyaneshwar Joshi hence there was no question

¶19

of granting duplicate licence. A complaint

¶20

therefore was filed on 3rd March 2009 to the
Police Station Sonai by petitioner Sow Suman
Bhusari. A communication is annexed to the
petition issued by the Assistant Police
Inspector, Police Station Sonai dated 3-3-2009
wherein it seems that the complaint was forwarded

¶21

to the Collector Stamps for further inquiry. The
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had grievance against the authorities

¶22

to whom the complaint is forwarded for inquiry
which itself shows non application mind on the
part of the police.

¶23

3)The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr. Sonwane is instructed by the police officer
today. The A.P.P. submits that as on today the
complaint is neither closed nor registered as

¶24

First Information Report and, according to the
instructions, the A.P.P. submits that the inquiry
is going on.

¶25

¶26

4)It is surprising to note that there is

¶27

nothing placed on record by the prosecution to

¶28

show that entry of the complaint was taken in
some of the registers which the police station
maintains. We find that it is necessary to
scrutinize as to whether any complaint lodged by
a person is at least taken note of in any of the
registers maintained by the police station so
that the record would reflect that a citizen had
filed complaint to the police station. Whether

¶29

any cognizable or non cognizable offence is
disclosed is an entirely different issue at that
stage.

¶30

5)We find that keeping complaint pending
for such a long period without there being any
record of pendency or otherwise reflects
adversely on the prosecution agency. Whatever may
be the outcome of the investigation it must
reflect in the record maintained by the police
station when a complaint is filed by a citizen.

¶31

¶32

6) The learned APP, on instructions,
submits that the inquiry would be conducted at
the earliest and final decision would be taken
regarding the complaint filed. We express no
opinion of this court regarding merits of the
matter. We observe that the petitioner has filed
this writ petition relating to a licence granted
to one Dnyaneshwar Joshi, who is not made a party
to this petition. We do not find any satisfactory
explanation on the part of the petitioner as to
why the petitioner is raising this grievance
after near about 17 to 18 years. The petitioner
even has other statutory remedies for redressal
of her grievances. Considering all these
circumstances we are not inclined to entertain
this petition and grant prayers to the petitioner
in exercise of our extra ordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶33

Constitution India.

¶34

7)At this stage, no interference is called
for. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶35

¶36

8)It is necessary for the officers in
charge of police stations to maintain the record
of complaints filed by any citizen in accordance
with the Bombay Police Manual 1959, the rules and
regulations framed accordingly in that respect.

¶37

9)We direct the Superintendent of Police
Ahmednagar to take stock of the situation of
various police stations of Taluka Headquarters
including district as to whether the procedure
prescribed in the Bombay Police Manual 1959 is

¶38

strictly followed or not. The Registry to
forward a copy of this order to the

¶39

Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar.

¶40

(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶41

rsl/ crwp.540.09

Sau. Suman W/O. Ashok Bhusari v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Suman W/O. Ashok Bhusari v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhakar Pandit Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ashabai Bhavrao Desale

State of Maharashtra Vs Raju S/O. Bhagwat Suryawanshi and Ors.

Smt.Shaila Pradeep Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharat Krishnarao Mohadakar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak S/O. Ramkrishna Bharuka Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.