High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Mahendra Tulsidas Bhuta challenging failure to register a police complaint, upholding its rejection on merits. Petition was treated as afterthought without witness disclosure.
None granted; petition rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.612 OF 2010
Mahendra Tulsidas Bhuta. ....Petitioner Vs. Senior Inspector of Police, Nirmal Nagar Police Station & ors. ....Respondents
Mr.R.Satyanarayanan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP for State.
CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2010.
P.C.
pressed into service on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the reply affidavit filed by the Respondents.
allegations made in the written complaint dated 16th June, 2008 is after thought. Besides, no one has come forward to support the said allegation to the effect that
the two brothers shouted at the complainant and subsequently, the friends accompanying the said two brothers threatened the complainant to kill. No such
2
disclosure was made when the complaint was recorded with the concerned Police Station on 10th June, 2008 and again on 13th June, 2008. It is not the case of the Petitioner that although such statement was made before the Police, the same was not intentionally recorded by the police so as to treat the complaint only as N.C. We do not find any averments in the Writ Petition that such statement was made in the police station at the relevant time. In other words, the written complaint, as filed is afterthought and perhaps under legal advice. The said complaint does not disclose name of any person having witnessed the incident of threatening the complainant. Moreover, the incident pertains to June, 2008. At this distance of time, no fruitful purpose will be served by directing the police to pursue the matter further. Indeed, it will be open to the Petitioner to take recourse to such other remedy, as may be permissible by law. In the circumstances, this Petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence, rejected.
(P.D.KODE, J.)
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the non-filing of a police complaint can be termed as colourable and if it deserves leniency at this stage of the proceedings.
Mahendra Tulsidas Bhuta
Senior Inspector of Police, Nirmal Nagar Police Station
and ors.
A.M. Khanwilkar
P.D. Kode
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
