MANOJ CHANDULAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition present petitioner desires this Court to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also inherent powers as conferred by section 482 of Cri. P. C. 1973 and quash and set aside the criminal prosecution lodged against him which is registered as Case No. 23/p/95 pending in the Court of 7th Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Bombay. Petitioner has also prayed for monetary compensation from the respondents for his allegedly illegal and unlawful arrest and detention which he had to suffer at the hands of respondents.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition can be narrated as follows:---

(3.) SO far as claim of compensation, petition stands frustrated because, it is informed by both the lawyers that respondent No. 4 Mr. Shukla expired sometime in November, 2000. As far as respondent No. 5 is concerned, Advocate Mr. Shirsat opened his arguments by fairly conceding that although he was not allowed to contact his family on telephone, respondent No. 5 was helpful in sending message himself and therefore, now he does not wish to press his claim for compensation as against respondent No. 5. Mr. Shirsat tried to press his claim of compensation against respondent No. 3 by relying upon the contents in the petition that the respondent No. 3 was instrumental, being a close friend of original complainant. For the purpose, he also referred to the contents in affidavit of respondent No. 5 to the effect that he acted on the instructions of his superiors. The claim for compensation, either as against respondent No. 3 or to some extent also against respondent No. 4 and 5, need not be entertained. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 in its supervisory jurisdiction. The claim for compensation is based on contention that he was wrongfully arrested and detained. It is not the claim that he was detained without obtaining appropriate orders from the competent legal authorities. The detention is claimed to be wrongful because basically there is no offence made out against him for which he could have been arrested. The claim for compensation in writ jurisdiction cannot be without reference to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, although the same is not expressly referred in the body of the petition. Under the rules of procedure as contained in Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1961, it would be the Division Bench which would be required to hear the claim. The claim cannot be entertained by a Single Judge, much less with the powers with which this Court is armed, by Article 227 of the Constitution of India or section 482 of Cri. P. C. 1973. Respondent No. 3 is impleaded in his official capacity. No individual is named, nor served as in the case of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. However, learned Counsel for petitioner has submitted that in view of death of respondent No. 4, he would not press the claim for compensation, and therefore, scope of present writ petition restricts to considering whether the prosecution lodged against the present petitioner on the basis of complaint by Shri I. H. Keshwani is sustainable or is required to be quashed.