← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/5216/2017others disposed off

Sukeshanee Shashikant Kamble v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2018-01-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep Kashinath Shinde,Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.M. Savant.3 pages

* 1/3 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5216 OF 2017 Sukeshanee Shashikant Kamble ....Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

....Respondents * * * * * Mr. Ravindra Lokhande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.V. Saste, Addl. P.P. for the State.

CORAM :- CORAM :- R.M. SAVANT, & R.M. SAVANT, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :- DATE :- 29TH JANUARY, 2018.

29TH JANUARY, 2018.

P.C. :- P.C. :- 1.

1.

The above Writ Petition has been filed for The above Writ Petition has been filed for setting aside the report dated 13 setting aside the report dated 13th th September, 2017 of the September, 2017 of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vasai Sub-Division. The said Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vasai Sub-Division. The said report is in respect of the allegation made by the report is in respect of the allegation made by the petitioner and other ladies residing in the police quarters petitioner and other ladies residing in the police quarters as regards making the right of way available to a third as regards making the right of way available to a third

* 2/3 * party through the police establishment.

party through the police establishment.

2.

2.

A reading of the report, discloses that the A reading of the report, discloses that the petitioner and other ladies were requested to remain petitioner and other ladies were requested to remain present before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. However, present before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. However, they have refused to do so on the ground that the Subthey have refused to do so on the ground that the SubDivisional Police Officer is not entitled to enquire into Divisional Police Officer is not entitled to enquire into their allegations. The report concludes by observing that their allegations.

The report concludes by observing that the road in question has been depicted in the development the road in question has been depicted in the development plan published by the Vasai Municipal Corporation and plan published by the Vasai Municipal Corporation and therefore the grievance made by the petitioner and the therefore the grievance made by the petitioner and the other ladies who are residents of the police quarters, has other ladies who are residents of the police quarters, has no merit. It is the contention of the petitioner that, we in no merit.

It is the contention of the petitioner that, we in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should sit in judgment over the said report dated of India, should sit in judgment over the said report dated 13th th September, 2017. We are unable to accept the said September, 2017. We are unable to accept the said contention. Firstly, because the petitioner and the other contention.

* 3/3 * Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the petitioner can always Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the petitioner can always approach the higher authorities. In that view of the approach the higher authorities. In that view of the matter, we decline to exercise our writ jurisdiction. The matter, we decline to exercise our writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (R.M. SAVANT, J) (R.M. SAVANT, J)