AJAY YOGINDRA MAFATLAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only grievance made in this Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is that the Gaondevi Police Station registered an offence (C.R. No.319 of 2007) punishable under Sections 504 and 506, Part (II) of I.P.C. against the Applicants.

(2.) The submission is that this mistake was further compounded by the fact that the Respondent has filed a charge-sheet after investigations were concluded and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai took cognizance thereof. The Applicant had to apply for the anticipatory bail and when they noticed that the offences punishable under both Sections are non-cognizable and bailable, the Application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as infructuous.

(3.) His submission is that no FIR could have been registered when the offences alleged are non-cognizable and bailable. Sections 504 and 506, Part (II) have been perused by me with the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides. Mr. Shinde, learned APP found it difficult to support the action of the Respondent. He fairly stated that the Respondent could not have taken any cognizance and held any investigations. Instead the offence alleged being non-cognizable, the remedy for the Complainant was elsewhere. It was open to the Complainant to file an appropriate complaint before the concerned Magistrate and thereafter, the Magistrate could have directed the Police to take necessary steps if otherwise permissible in law.