MUKESH R GOKAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for direction against the respondents to take cognizance of the complaint made by the petitioner dated 10 th June, 2006 and submit appropriate report in that behalf after conducting inquiry. It is further prayed that the investigation of the case be entrusted to third agency other than respondent No.3.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner asserts that he is dealing in the garment export business and has manufacturing facilities at Chennai. He had business transaction in the year 2000 with one M/s.Lalitha Fashions of Chennai having their business at Lalitha Handlooms, No.25, Shanmugarayan Street, Chennai-600 021. Later on, some difference and disputes arose between the parties. According to the petitioner because of the delay in supply of material, the petitioner had to suffer substantial loss. Notwithstanding that the said firm filed criminal complaint of cheating against the petitioner instead of settling the accounts with the petitioners. The petitioner received summons from the Office of Inspector of Police, General Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai stating that said Lalitha Fashions had filed criminal complaint of cheating against the petitioner at Chennai Crime Branch and the petitioner was required to attend the said investigation. It is stated that in response to the said summons, the petitioner attended the Office of the Investigating Officer in the said case at Chennai for the purpose of investigation. In the said investigation, statement of employees of the petitioner's firm as well as financial manager were recorded by the Crime Branch Officer from Chennai. After completion of the investigation and recording of statement and collecting evidence, Crime Branch Officer of Chennai closed the investigation. According to the petitioner, the said complaint filed by Lalitha Fashions was not pressed further by the Crime Branch against the petitioner. That was orally informed by the concerned Officer to the petitioner.

(3.) However, the petitioner had to face some untoward situation on 3 rd May, 2006. The same has been highlighted in the Advocate's letter dated 17 th May, 2006, sent to the Senior Inspector of Police, N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Crawford Market, Mumbai. Later on, the petitioner sent his own letter to the Senior Inspector of Police, Commissioner of Police, and Joint Commissioner of Police dated 10 th June, 2006 reiterating the same facts. The relevant extract of the said written complaint sent by the petitioner reads thus :