Disposed

Razak Hasan Dokadia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 May 2009WP/801/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petitions seeking quashing of notices and action against police for alleged mistreatment during the 26/11 Mumbai attack investigation. Court held quashing unnecessary due to police report clearing petitioners but directed police commissioner to investigate allegations of abuse and frictions within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Commissioner of Police, Thane to investigate the petitioners' grievances regarding alleged police misconduct and communicate the result within one month.

Razak Hasan Dokadia and Anr. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 801 OF 2009

¶4

Razak Hasan Dokadia & Ors. Vs.

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents

¶7

AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 802 OF 2009

¶8

Parvez Gulam Rasul Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Mr.S.C.Halli for Petitioners Ms.P.H.Kantharia. Addl.P.P.

¶13

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SHRI. R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 4^TH MAY, 2009

¶14

P.C.

¶15

The petitioners have interalia prayed that the notices dated 22^nd March, 2009 and 23^rd March, 2009 which are issued by respondent 4 asking them to report to Manikpur Police Station in connection with the

¶16

¶17

information received by Manikpur Police Station in respect of firing which had taken place in Mumbai on 26^th November, 2008 be quashed and set aside.

¶18

It appears that the police had received some information that the petitioners are involved in the terrorist attack on Mumbai which had taken place in Mumbai on 26^th November, 2008. It is the petitioners' case that in that connection the petitioners were repeatedly called to the police station. The grievance of the petitioners is that the police illtreated them. It is their case that they are not concerned with the terrorist attack on Mumbai and that the notices issued to them be quashed.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. He reiterated the grievance made in the petition. He stated that illegally finger prints of the petitioners were obtained. He submitted that the police used abusive and insulting language during investigation. The police called them traitors which has caused immense pain and humiliation to them. Learned counsel submitted that it is, therefore, necessary for this Court to issue necessary directions to take action against the said police officers.

¶20

¶21

We have also heard Ms. Kantharia, learned A.P.P. She has submitted a report sent to Mr. Param Bir Singh, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai by Inspector of Police, Anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai dated 29^th April, 2009 in the Court today. The report states that investigation has disclosed that the petitioners are not involved in 26^th November, 2008 attack. The said letter/report along with the annexures is taken on record and marked “X” .

¶22

In view of the above we feel that it is not necessary now to entertain the petitions. However, the serious grievance made by the petitioners against the investigating officer needs to be investigated.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners state that he has submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Thane. It is dated 26^th March, 2009. That representation has not yet been disposed of as yet. We, therefore, direct the Commissioner of Police, Thane to dispose of the said representation at the earliest and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order by him.

¶24

We must note that the grievances made by the

¶25

¶26

petitioners are very serious and if they are true some action needs to be taken against the Investigating Officer. The Commissioner of Police, Thane should therefore, deal with the petitioners' grievances in their proper perspective.

¶27

If necessary the petitioners may be called and their statements be recorded. Investigating Officer's statement may also be recorded. Result of the inquiry be communicated to the petitioners.

¶28

Both the petitions are disposed of.

¶29

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶30

(SHRI. R.G. KETKAR, J.)

Razak Hasan Dokadia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Razak Hasan Dokadia and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Larson and Toubro Infotech Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pradeep Pandurang Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Govind Ghadge Vs the Divisional Commissioner , Pune and Anr.

Shri Anant Chandru Wake Vs the Superintendent,Kolhapur Central Jail and Ors.

Nimraj Pandharinath Vispute Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Rajesh Dhanaji Dhondi Vs the State of Maharashtra