Disposed

Parshuram Nagesh Dandekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2010WP/1459/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay directed that a complaint regarding house-breaking and theft be investigated by the CID Crime Branch instead of the local police, finding the local officer’s inquiry inadequate.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the case be registered with the CID Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai, for immediate investigation by an independent police official.

Parshuram Nagesh Dandekar Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

15 wp.1459.10

ndm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1459 OF 2010

¶6

Parshuram Nagesh Dandekar. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondent

¶8

Mr. I.S. Thakur i/b M/s. Globar Juris Consults for the Petitioner. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 17th September, 2010.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 We have perused the petition and the accompanying

¶12

documents as well as the affidavits filed by the respective parties. It is noticed that the Petitioner had complained to the local police station complaining of house breaking, theft and trespass in the flats, which were occupied by the Petitioner at the relevant time, bearing Flat Nos. B-603 and B-604. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said flats have been purchased by him from the builder and he was put in possession thereof. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner was not only occupying the said flats but was also enrolled as member of the cooperative society. Besides, the electricity connection provided to the said two flats also stand in the

¶13

¶14

15 wp.1459.10

¶15

name of the Petitioner and his daughter. The fact that as of now third party is occupying the said flats as asserted by the Petitioner is indisputable. In such a situation, the local police had no option, but to register FIR in the first place and thereafter, investigate into the said complaint. We have noticed that the local police officer has only conducted inquiry into the matter. That was possible only if the case was to be one covered by the excepted category of cases. Ordinarily, the local police can have no option, but to register the FIR as soon as the complaint discloses cognizable offence. In the fact situation of the present case, the complaint made by the Petitioner does disclose commission of cognizable offence by the named persons.

¶16

2 We have noticed the reply filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Turbhe Division, Navi Mumbai, which refers to the steps taken by the local police officer. In our opinion, the entire effort of the said police official is misplaced and misdirected. We would refrain from making any further comments at this stage. Instead, we direct that the case be registered with the CID Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai, which will be investigated by some independent police official. That be done forthwith.

¶17

3 Petition disposed of on the above terms.

Parshuram Nagesh Dandekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshuram Nagesh Dandekar 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

Tanaji Khandu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Ramchandra Adlinge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narayan Ramu Noukudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Laxman Shavaru Kale

Anwar Musa Sayyed and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan Vs Union of India and Anr.