Bombay High Court
Prashant Narbadeshwarprasad Mishra vs The Commissioner Of Police Through ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:8181-DB
909-APPW-186-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 186 OF 2025
IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 427 OF 2025
(Prashant Narbadeshwarprasad Mishra Vs. Office of the Commissioner of Police, through
Commissioner of Police)
(Applicant - Ravinder s/o Zile Singh Singal)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Government Pleader/Senior Counsel with
Mr. A.B. Badar, A.P.P. for the applicant.
.....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
M.M. NERLIKAR, JJ.
AUGUST 19, 2025
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Government
Pleader/Senior Counsel submits that copy of application
was served to the petitioner. An affidavit of service is
tendered across the bar. Taken on record.
2] By present application, the applicant -
Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, who filed application in
personal capacity, is seeking to delete paragraph 6 of
order dated 31/7/2025 passed by this Court in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 427/2025. The reason why such a
prayer is made is that the Commissioner of Police was not
made party in person, though the petitioner levelled
allegations against him and was not given opportunity of
hearing before passing the order that affects his right to
contradict what has been alleged against him in personal
capacity. Another limb of argument is that the Court
granted relief to the petitioner, which was not even
prayed for.
3] Thus, it is argued that the contents of
paragraph 6 is something that could be said to be an
order passed without there being prayer, and secondly,
the order is passed without giving opportunity of hearing
to the applicant.
4] Before taking up the issue, it will be
appropriate to reproduce entire order passed by this
Court on dated 31/7/2025 in Criminal Application No.
427/2025, which reads thus :
"Heard.
2. The petitioner intends to lodge a report
against the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur for
the alleged assault on him and his sister. By the
present petition he has requested for supply of
CCTV footage of the incident which had
occurred on 29.04.2024. Thus, the petitioner
intends to collect evidence, so that he can
proceed against the Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur.
3. The petition was initially listed before
the Vacation Bench wherein a direction was
given to preserve the CCTV footage, if
available.
4. The petitioner has invited our attention
to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Paramvir Singh
Saini .vrs. Baljit Singh (AIR 2021 SC 64),
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all
Police Stations throughout India to install CCTV
cameras having facility to record the footage for
a period of 18 months.
5. That being so, the purpose of filing the
present petition will be served if the respondent
is directed to preserve the CCTV footage of the
entire day i.e. 29.04.2024. Order accordingly.
6. The petitioner may approach the
appropriate forum for redressal of his
grievance, so far as it relates to lodging report
against the Commissioner of Police for the
alleged physical assault on the petitioner and
his sister.
7. With aforesaid observations, Criminal
Writ Petition is disposed of."
5] As could be seen, the petitioner intends to
lodge a report against the Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur, for the alleged assault on him and his sister. The
pleadings to that effect finds place in paragraph 11 of the
petition. The relief that was sought by the petitioner was,
however, to produce/supply copy of CCTV footage from
the office of the Commissioner of Police of the incident,
which allegedly occurred on 29/4/2024.
6] We found this prayer to be an attempt to
collect evidence so that the petitioner can proceed against
the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur. The petitioner relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh [AIR 2021
SC 64], wherein the Court directed all the Police Stations
throughout India to install CCTV cameras having facility
to record footage for a period of eighteen months.
7] Considering the aforesaid ruling, and
further considering the fact that prayer for lodging report
against the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, was not
made, and since the request refers to collecting evidence,
we thought it proper to direct the respondent -
Commissioner of Police to preserve CCTV footage of the
entire day, i.e., 29/4/2024. It is in this context that
subsequent order was passed, by which the petitioner was
given liberty to approach appropriate forum for redressal
of his grievance, which relates to lodging report against
the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, for the alleged
physical assault.
8] Thus, we have noted that by filing petition,
the petitioner intends to collect evidence, which lies
within the domain of investigation and accordingly liberty
was granted to the petitioner to approach appropriate
forum.
9] In such circumstances, what has been noted
in paragraph 6, in our view, cannot be said to be an order
passed against the applicant. The contents of paragraph 6
is what is the position of law and, therefore, requires no
personal hearing on this point. In any case, the
Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, was party respondent
and was duly heard before passing order. The argument
that he should have been made party in person is
farfetched and just a technical twist, carrying no
substance at all.
10] Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Government
Pleader/Senior Counsel has invited our attention to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bharat Amratlal Kothari And Another Vs. Dosukhan
Samadkhan Sindhi And Others [(2010) 1 SCC 234],
wherein the Court held that normally, the Court will grant
only those reliefs specifically prayed for by the petitioner,
and further, that granting any relief not prayed for cannot
be approved. The Supreme Court referred to yet another
judgment in the case of Om Prakash Vs. Ram Kumar
[(1991) 1 SCC 441], wherein the Court held that a party
cannot be granted a relief, which is not claimed if the
circumstances of the case are such that granting of such
relief would result in serious prejudice to the interested
party and deprive him of valuable rights under the
statute.
11] We find from this judgment that as such,
there is no absolute bar in granting relief, which is not
prayed, the relief, however, should be not such that would
cause serious prejudice to the interested party and
deprive him of valuable rights under the statute.
12] If the contents of paragraph 6 are read in
the light of Om Prakash's case, we do not find that any
prejudice will be caused to the applicant, more so, when
we find that the contents of paragraph 6 is not an order
against the applicant. Accordingly, we are not inclined to
delete paragraph 6 of the order.
13] At this stage, Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned
Government Pleader/Senior Counsel submits that what
has been noted in paragraph 6 is treated as binding order
and that petitioner is treating so.
14] We find this submission to be surprising.
The petitioner's perception will not decide the effect of
finding. The fact remains that we have not issued any
direction in the nature of order or otherwise. However,
towards abundant precaution, we clarify that what has
been noted in paragraph 6 is not a direction given to
either party.
15] With the above clarification, the application
is disposed of.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Sumit
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/08/2025 16:07:06
