Vinod S/O. Buralal Jain v. The State Of Maharashtra

06-wp-2982-17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2982 OF 2017 Vinod Buralal Jain ..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent __________ Mr. A. M. Saraogi for Petitioner.

Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for State/Respondent.

__________ CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE : 17 NOVEMBER 2021 P.C. :

.

The Petitioner has sought relief directing the Respondent to take cognizance of the complaint made by the Petitioner on 15 September 2015. According to the Petitioner, the persons against whom he has grievance i.e. brother of the Petitioner and others have made him sign certain blank papers.

2.

Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides a procedure as regarding information to the police in cognizable cases. Section 154(3) of the Code states that, any person aggrieved by a VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE refusal on the part of the officer in charge of a police station to record VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2021.11.20 11:27:48 +0530 Gokhale

06-wp-2982-17 the information, the said person can approach the Superintendent of Police concerned. The Code also provides further remedy under section 156. Once these remedies are available to the Petitioner, in the facts of the case we do not deem it necessary to issue a prerogative writ, as sought for.

3.

However, we find that the request of the Petitioner that his grievance be looked into within a time bound manner is justified, considering that the Petitioner had approached this court earlier. 4.

Thus, we direct that, if the Petitioner approaches under section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the concerned Superintendent of Police, the concerned Superintendent of Police shall take necessary decision as per law within a period of four weeks thereafter.

5.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)