Bombay High Court
Harji Nanji Devda vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
(42) WP 1411-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
WRIT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 2020
Harji Nanji Devda .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w. Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy i/b Mr.
Kamlesh Mishra for the Petitioner.
Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2021.
P. C. :
1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:
(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari
calling for the record and proceedings leading to the passing of the
judgment dated 30th December, 2019 (Exhibit "F") of the State
Police Complaints Authority and after examining the legality and
propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same;
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
directing the Respondents herein and the EOW, Crime Branch,
Mumbai Police to register an FIR under the appropriate Sections
of the Indian Penal Code against the Developer/Builder and its
Directors as more particularly mentioned in the Complaints dated
17th August, 2017 (Exhibit "A") and 9th September, 2017 (Exhibit
"B") and letter dated 15/10/2018 (Exhibit "F").
2. The Petitioner had submitted a complaint to State Police
Complaints Authority claiming that the concerned police officers had
not taken proper action and that FIR was not registered pursuant to the
(42) WP 1411-20
grievance raised by him in connection with a particular document, which
according to the Petitioner was interpolated at the behest of a
Developer/Builder.
3. By the impugned order the Authority has taken note of the
document in which there was alleged interpolation and upon giving
interpretation of the same, a finding is rendered that the Petitioner was
not justified in raising grievance against the concerned police officer.
4. It is held by the Authority that no action needs to be taken against
the said police officers. Additionally it is noted that it appears to be a
civil wrong in respect of which the Petitioner had already approached
the Consumer Forum. On this basis, the complaint filed before the said
Authority was rejected.
5. In the present Writ Petition, apart from challenging the said order
passed by the Authority, prayer is made for a direction to the
Respondents to register FIR on the basis of grievance raised by the
Petitioner, in respect of interpolation in the document allegedly at the
behest of the Developer/Builder.
6. Perusal of Sections 22P and 22Q of the Maharashtra Police Act,
1951, would show that the State Police Complaints Authority has been
constituted by State Government under Section 22P of the said Act in
order to entertain complaints against police officers and police personnel
who have failed to perform their duties and functions. The powers and
functions of the said Authority specified in Section 22Q of the said Act
indicate as to what action can be taken by the said Authority against the
police officers.
7. On a pointed query put to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as
to whether the said Authority under the provisions of the Act could direct
registration of FIR on the basis of grievance raised by an aggrieved
(42) WP 1411-20
person like the Petitioner, the learned Counsel fairly stated that there was
no such power available with the Authority.
8. Yet it is submitted that the order impugned in the present Writ
Petition would come in the way of the Petitioner if he seeks to invoke
powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. pertaining
to his grievance with regard to alleged interpolation in the said
document.
9. We are of the view that the apprehension expressed on behalf of
the Petitioner is misplaced because the findings rendered in the aforesaid
order passed by the Authority dated 30.12.20219 cannot come in the way
of the Jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the grievance of the
Petitioner on its own merits.
10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the prayers made
in the present Writ Petition cannot be granted. At the same time we
clarify that if the Petitioner seeks to invoke Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
before the jurisdictional Magistrate, such Court shall proceed to consider
the grievance of the Petitioner on its own merits, without being
influenced by the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the State Police
Complaints Authority, which has been made subject matter of challenge
in the present Writ Petition.
11. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations.
[MANISH PITALE, J.] [S. S. SHINDE J.]
Digitally signed
Arjun by Arjun M.
Kadam
M. Date:
2021.02.17
Kadam 10:38:26
+0530
