Disposed

Charuben Kishor Mehta v. Shivram Parab and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Aug 2010WP/1843/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that the petitioner's complaint should be investigated by P.I. Patil under the supervision of Senior Inspector George and oversight of D.C.P. Prasanna. The court dispensed any opinion on the allegations regarding police inaction or influence.

What did the court decide?

Directiois are issued for the Investigating Officer to proceed with the complaint expeditiously under the supervision of the Senior Inspector and oversight of the DCP.

Charuben Kishor Mehta Vs Shivram Parab and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1843 OF 2010

¶6

Mrs. Charuben Kishor Mehta. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

Shivram Parab & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vineet B. Naik i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Girish Kulkarni for respondent 1.

¶10

Ms. Usha V. Kejariwal, A.P.P. for the State.

¶11

CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI &

¶12

MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 11TH AUGUST, 2010.

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

The petitioner is a permanent Trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (for short, “the said Trust”). The petitioner had lodged a complaint with the Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai on 26/1/2010 which was transferred on the same day to the Bandra Police Station,

¶16

AJN

¶17

¶18

Mumbai. In the complaint, the petitioner has made serious allegations against respondent 1, who is Director / Head of Department of H.R. & I.R. of Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre. The case of the petitioner is that on 19/1/2010, respondent 1 threatened, intimidated and assaulted the petitioner and though the petitioner has made oral and written requests to the Board of Trustees of the said Trust, no action has been taken against respondent 1. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bandra Police Station has not taken necessary steps to investigate the said complaint. It is suggested in the petition that the Bandra Police Station has shown laxity because the said Trust has been instrumental in expanding the base of the Bandra Police Station by giving donations from time to time. It is stated that the said Trust was also instrumental in sponsoring various functions / events for the Bandra Police Station and the said police station is permitted to function under the blessings, influence / obligations of the said Trust. It is, inter alia, prayed in the petition that the complaint of the

¶19

AJN

¶20

¶21

petitioner be transferred to some other police station for

¶22

necessary action as per law.

¶23

We have heard Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 and Ms. Kejariwal, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶24

Mr. Naik has reiterated the averments made in the petition. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, drew our attention to an affidavit filed by Mr. P.M. George, Senior Inspector of Bandra Police Station. In the affidavit, the allegations made against the Bandra Police Station have been denied. It is stated in the affidavit that the said complaint has been transferred to P.I. Patil on 5/8/2010 for necessary action. Considering the background and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it would be appropriate to direct P.I. Patil, who is dealing with the complaint filed by the petitioner to take steps on the said complaint in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶25

¶26

AJN

¶27

We note the presence of the Senior Inspector of Police Mr. George in our court today. We feel that Mr. George should supervise the steps taken by Mr. Patil on the complaint and D.C.P. Zone 9 Mr. Prasanna should oversee the investigation. In our opinion, such exercise should allay all fears of the petitioner. Hence, the following order.

¶28

P.I. Patil shall take all necessary steps in accordance with law in connection with the complaint of the petitioner dated 26/1/2010 expeditiously. Every step taken by P.I. Patil shall be intimated to the Senior Inspector of Police Mr. George. Mr. George, Senior Inspector of Police shall supervise the steps taken by P.I. Patil. Mr. Prasanna, D.C.P., Zone 9, shall oversee the steps taken by P.I. Patil and supervised by Mr. George, Senior Inspector of Police.

¶29

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the allegations made by the petitioner in respect of the alleged conduct of the officers of the

¶30

AJN

¶31

¶32

Bandra Police Station, either way. Needless to say that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall intimate the date and time at which the police officer should go to her house and record her statement.

¶33

The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

¶34

[MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

¶35

[MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

Charuben Kishor Mehta v. Shivram Parab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charuben Kishor Mehta v. Shivram Parab 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

Deepak Bajirao Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santaji Madhukar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Purshottam D. Barde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raosaheb @ Dabya Raja Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raosaheb @ Dabya Raja Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Union of India Vs Jayantilal @ Vikram @ Jabraram S/O Lacharam Parihar and Ors.