Dismissed

Rajni D/O Krushnadatta Ukey v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Deptt of Home Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC21 Aug 2012WP/301/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing police to register an offence based on a report alleging cognizable offence. Court found alternate remedies available including filing complaint before Magistrate or under Section 156(3) CrPC. Petition dismissed giving primacy to alternatives. No order as to costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner relegated to filing complaint before Magistrate or application under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Rajni D/O Krushnadatta Ukey Vs State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/2

¶2

21.08.wp.301.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 301 / 2012 (Rajani Krushnadatta Ukey vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )

¶5

.................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr.I S Charlewar, Adv. for petitioner Mr T.A.Mirza, APP for respondent-State

¶7

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ.

¶8

DATED : 21^st August, 2012.

¶9

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register an offence on the basis of the report of the petitioner dated 7^th June,2012, which is annexed to the petition at Annexure “A”. The petitioner also prays that action be initiated against the respondent no.2 for his failure to discharge duties properly..

¶10

On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply At Paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply, the respondents states that they have not found any material against the respondents 4 to 12 on the basis of the report lodged by the petitioner and consequently, no offence was registered.

¶11

Shri I.S.Charlewar, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that though the report discloses

¶12

2/2

¶13

21.08.wp.301.12

¶14

commission of a cognizable offence, yet the responsible police officers have not registered any offence. It is also urged before us that the statement of the petitioner was not recorded and consequently, it would not be open for the respondents to contend that the report does not disclose the commission of cognizable offence.

¶15

At this juncture, we may usefully refer to the judgment in Aleque Padamsee & others vs. Union of India & others : (2007) Vol.6 SCC 171, wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph 8 of the judgment, has held that a writ directing the police officers to investigate an offence on the basis of the report woulds not be available as the petitioner therein would have alternate remedies available to him. Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. AIR 2008 SC 907, in which the Supreme Court has held in the light of existence of alternate remedy, such a relief cannot be granted to the petitioner.

¶16

We accordingly, dismiss this Petition and relegate the petitioner to avail the alternate remedies available to him in law, that is, of filing a complaint before the Magistrate having the jurisdiction or an Application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶17

JUDGEJUDGE

¶18

sahare

Rajni D/O Krushnadatta Ukey v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Deptt of Home Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajni D/O Krushnadatta Ukey v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Deptt of Home Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan S/O Yeshwant Nahatkar Vs the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and 2 Others

Ramkisan S/O Goverdhan Dhurve Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Salekasa Ps Gondia

Sham S/O Subhashrao Kase Vs State of Maharashtra through Ps Midc Nagpur

Mukesh Waman Bansod, Convict No C 5939 Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secretary, Home Department and Another

The Thakkargram Gruhanirman Housing Society Ltd. Nagpur through Ex Secy. Dd Chichghare and Another Vs Shri Krushna Pancham Khopde and Others

Ansar Khan S/O Ibrahim Khan Pathan (in Jail) C/8030 Vs State of Maharashtra through Secy Home Deptt Mantralya Mumbai and Others