MISS VEENA SIPPY Vs. NARAYAN DUMBRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the administrative order dated 8 th February, 2012 passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this Petition has been assigned to this Bench. As per the earlier order of the Division Bench, we have taken up this petition for final hearing.

(2.) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner appearing in person has complained that the officers of Gamdevi police station, Mumbai illegally detained her from 5 th April, 2008 till 6 th April, 2008. Her grievance is that a false case alleging commission of offence under Section 117 read with Section 112 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1951") was registered by the said officers against her and ultimately the prosecution has resulted into an order of discharge dated 15 th July, 2008. By this Petition, she has claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. The first Respondent in this Petition is the Senior Inspector of police attached to Gamdevi Police station. The second Respondent is Sub Inspector of Police attached to Gamdevi Police station. The third Respondent was the then Assistant Commissioner of police Gamdevi Division having his office at Gamdevi Police Station. The fourth Respondent is also an Inspector of Police. The Petitioner appearing in person has made a statement before us that she has no grievance against the fourth Respondent. The fifth Respondent is the State of Maharashtra.

(3.) The case of the petitioner as set out in the petition is that on 4 th April, 2008, she had lodged a complaint with Gamdevi police station. She visited the said police station on 5 th April, 2008 for collecting the copy of the First Information Report ( for short 'F.I.R') which she was expecting to be registered on the basis of her copmplaint. According to her case, she reached the police station at about 5.00 p.m. Her case is that when she asked for a copy of the F.I.R., the second Respondent who was the officer on duty very rudely told her that no F.I.R has been registered and it is not going to be registered. Her case is that the first and third respondents were present at the police station at the relevant time. On the first floor of the police station, there is an office of the third respondent who was at the relevant time, the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Gamdevi Division. The case of the Petitioner is that though his visiting hours are 4.00 to 6.00 p.m., after noticing the presence of the Petitioner, the third respondent closed his chamber from inside and sent a message to the Petitioner to wait for 10 minutes. Afterwards the third Respondent told the petitioner that she should meet him at 6.00 p.m. as he was busy. Her case is that after knocking at his door repeatedly without any response, she was told to go down to the Duty Officer and register the FIR.