OMPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date (i.e. on 11th December 2012), though the Petition was fully heard, we had granted time on the request made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third Respondent as the decision on the proposal for withdrawal of complaint made by the higher authority was awaited. The learned counsel appearing for the third Respondent has today stated that the higher authority has not taken any decision. Therefore, we proceed to deliver the judgment. The prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the First Information Report lodged at the instance of the third Respondent. The offence has been registered on 7th September 2006 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 353, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 39, 192 and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 12B of the of Motor Vehicles Tax Act.

(2.) Before we consider the submissions, it will be necessary to make a reference to the allegations made in the complaint dated 7th September 2006 on the basis of which, the First Information Report has been registered. It is stated therein that the third Respondent was working as an Inspector with the Regional Transport Office, Mumbai (Central), Mumbai. He has stated that he received an information that a Toyoto Corolla Car bearing Registration No. MH-02-AL-12 was being used with number plate "Maharashtra-02-AL-12". On 20th August 2006, when he was searching for that car, at about 9 a.m., he saw the said car parked inside the bungalow No. 113A in Sher-A-Punjab colony within the jurisdiction of Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai. He noticed that the gate was locked. He stated that he noticed from the gap in the gate of the bungalow that a cream coloured Toyoto Corolla car having a number plate in Marathi bearing "Maharashtra-02-AL-12" on front bumper was parked inside the compound of the bungalow. It is alleged that after verification from the Regional Transport Office, he confirmed that the said registration number was given to another vehicle viz. Maruti Zen in the year 2005. He stated that as he sought the help from Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai, the Sub Inspector of Police Shahid Rashid Siddiqui along with a Police Constable arrived at the spot. He stated that he informed the police officer that he was desirous of taking the possession of the said Toyoto car under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, he handed over a letter to the police officer requesting to break open the lock on the gate of the compound of the bungalow and hand over possession of the said car after drawing a panchanama. It is alleged that the Sub Inspector of Police made an inquiry and found that the owner of the bungalow was not available. Therefore, he called a key maker and after getting a duplicate key prepared, by using the same, the lock of the gate was opened. They entered the compound when they saw a cream coloured Toyoto Corolla Car inside the compound. It is stated that on the front bumper as also on rear side of the car, the number plates in Marathi displaying "Maharashtra-02-AL-12" were fixed, and in front side of the said Car, another Car (Maruti Suzuki Swift make) was standing. On the front side bumper of the said Car, on a red coloured paper, a registration number MH-04-Z-595 was written in English. It is stated that at that time, the first Petitioner who is stated to be an Advocate came there and stated that the bungalow was owned by the second Petitioner. He threatened the third Respondent by slating that he will drag him to the Court and tried to interfere with the official work. It is further alleged in the complaint that one woman came there who stated that the bungalow and the car was owned by the second Petitioner and that she is the mother of the second Petitioner. He stated that one Mohsin Ali came there. The third Respondent called upon him to produce the papers of Toyoto Corolla Car and the key thereof. He stated that he was not possessing the papers and the key of the car. The third Respondent further stated that by removing a quarter glass of the car, he himself opened the car and found that there were no papers inside the car. Therefore, he took over the possession of the car and detained the same in the Regional Transport Office. The First Information Report of the said incident of 20th August 2006 was registered on the basis of the complaint dated 7th September 2006 against the present Petitioners.

(3.) Various submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The first submission is that the second Petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2006 in this Court for challenging the action of the third Respondent and the police of entering the private property and of illegally taking over the custody of the car on 20th August 2006. It is pointed out that the Advocate's notice of the Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2006 was served to the State Government as well as to the third Respondent on 2nd September 2006. It is pointed out that the said Petition came up before this Court on 4th September 2006 when the State was represented by the learned APP and notice was issued to the Respondents by the Court on that date. His submission is that apart from the fact that the action of entering the private property of the second Petitioner by breaking open the lock was patently illegal, after knowing about the filing of the Writ Petition No. 1874 of 2006, on 7th September 2006, the third Respondent belatedly filed a complaint of the incident of 20th August 2006. He submitted that filing of such complaint was as a counter-blast to the said earlier Petition filed by the second Petitioner and the action is nothing but a mala fide action. On the basis of the said complaint, the impugned First Information Report was registered even against the first Petitioner who is a practicing Advocate. He submitted that filing of such complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law with a view to cover up the action of illegally taking over possession of the said car.