Bombay High Court
Narayan Puralalji Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, R. N. Laddha
bipin prithiani
1
17-wp-3506.17.doc
BIPIN
Digitally signed by
BIPIN
DHARMENDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date: 2023.01.13
16:54:12 +0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3506 OF 2017
Narayan Puralaji Sharma ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
******
Mr. S. M. Jain for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
PSI Shri Ganesh Mohite, Mulund Police Station.
******
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2023
P.C. :-
. Heard.
2. The petitioner has come out for following reliefs with prayer
clauses :
"B. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in that nature directing
the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to appoint any other officer or
any other appropriate police station to take necessary
appropriate action on the letter/complaint written by the
petitioner and his relatives, to investigate into the same.
And to take appropriate action against the respondent no.5
and his staff.
C. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to initiate
proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 against
the respondent no. 5 for flouted the guidelines/directions of
the apex court in the matter of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of
bipin prithiani
17-wp-3506.17.doc
U.P. - (1994) 4 SCC 260 and in the matter of D.K. Basu Vs.
State of West Bengal - (1997) 1 SCC 416 and in the matter
of Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar and Ors. (Criminal
Appeal No. 1277 of 2017).
D. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 to register offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 166, 167, 192, 211, 219, 354, 384,
385 of IPC r/w Sections 7, 11 and 13 of prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 against the Respondent No. 5 and his
staff who committed the aforesaid offences qua the
petitioner.
E. To direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to conduct
departmental inquiry against the respondent no. 5 and his
staff for their illegal activities.
F. To direct the respondent no.4 not to take any coercive
action against the petitioner without follow due process of
law as per direction of apex court in the matter of Arnesh
Kumar Versus State of Bihar and Ors. (Criminal Appeal
No. 1277 of 2014)."
3. It appears that the petitioner was already prosecuted in the matter
of purchase of stolen gold and is acquitted vide judgment and order
dated 8th January, 2021.
4. The defence for the plea which he has raised here, should have
been raised by the petitioner in the Sessions trial, so as to seek a
finding that he was falsely prosecuted or his prosecution is without
adhering to the procedure of the law or the orders of this Court
delivered in PIL as claimed.
5. The petitioner is too casual in the approach of the present
bipin prithiani
17-wp-3506.17.doc
petition, particularly when has not brought it to the notice of the Court
about his acquittal in the matter.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to show any
indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition
stands dismissed.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
