VINAY ASHARAM RATHI Vs. M S RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. The grievance of the petitioner relates to non-compliance of the orders issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, First Class under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as the said Code ). Pursuant to the said complaint, notices were issued to the respondents to answer the charge of contempt for non-compliance of the orders dated 31st May, 2000 and 7th April, 2000 issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, as prima facie, it appeared, that inspite of specific direction to complete the investigation into the complaints filed by the petitioner and to submit the charge-sheet or the summary report, as the case may be, at earliest possible, there was no compliance of the said orders till 1st June, 2001. Consequent to such notices, affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondents by one Rajan Dhobole, Senior Police Inspector attached to M. R. A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. In the course of hearing, additional affidavits came to be filed by Murlidhar S. Rao, the respondent No. 1, R. K. Kasbekar, Inspector of Police, L. A-II, Worli, Mumbai as well as by the petitioner. Copies of various documents including the investigation papers in respect of the investigation which is stated to have been carried out subsequent to the said orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate, as well as prior thereto, have been placed on record.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision in the matter, in brief, are that, the petitioner lodged complaints being Criminal Case No. 8 of 1995 and 31 of 1995 in February and July, 1995 respectively with the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai under various sections of Indian Penal Code. Consequent to which, directions came to be issued under section 156 of the said Code to the police to investigate into the matter. Being dissatisfied with the procedure adopted by the police authorities, the petitioner again approached the Magistrate, consequent to which, the learned Magistrate by order dated 7th April, 2000, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Mumbai, directed the Inspector of Police, M. R. A. Marg Police Station, to do the needful in the matter while reminding him about the requirements of compliance of the directions issued earlier pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner. Even prior thereto, the respondents were reminded of the complaint by the petitioners and about the necessary directions issued by the Magistrate for investigation and therefore, the necessity to do the needful in the matter by the police. Further, on 31st May, 2000, directed the Inspector of Police at M. R. A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai that matter was already sent to the police under section 156 (3) of the Code in terms of C. C. No. 8/ir/95 as well as 31/ir/95 and therefore the police were required to file either the charge-sheet or the summary report as early as possible. Thereafter, the respondents recorded M. E. C. R. No. 5 of 2000 on 18th of June, 2000 in relation to Complaint No. 8 of 1995 of the petitioner and also recorded M. E. C. R. No. 6 of 2000 on 7th July, 2000 in relation to complaint No. 31 of 1995 of the petitioner. In relation to the M. E. C. R. No. 5 of 2000, statements of four witnesses namely, Nilkumar Ramgopal Gupta, Mukat Simon John, C. Chandran and Geeta Kanthariya, came to be recorded on 20th, 23rd, 23rd and 24th June, 2000 respectively. In relation to M. E. C. R. No. 6 of 2000, statements of the petitioner, Anil Shridher Purandare, Farukh Ajmeri, Nilkumar Ramgopal Gupta came to be recorded on 7th July, 22nd August, and 7th July, and 7th July, 2000 respectively. The Senior Police Inspector of M. R. A. Marg Police Station, thereafter, submitted its report to the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 1st June, 2001.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of investigation, he had approached the office of the respondent No. 2 for necessary direction to expedite the investigation in accordance with the provisions of law, however, without any success. The petitioner complains of wilful and intentional disobedience of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate requiring the police respondents to investigate into the complaint of the petitioner, as the respondents did not take any action in the matter, even though there was specific direction to file either the charge-sheet or the summary report as early as possible by its order dated 31st May, 2000 and the investigation itself had commenced, as late as on 18th June, 2000 in case of Complaint No. 8 of 1995 and on 7th July, 2000 in case of Complaint No. 31 of 1995. Such acts on the part of the respondents police authorities, according to the petitioner, are in violation of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, and therefore, warrants action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to render necessary co-operation for the purpose of investigation, in as much as, that inspite of intimation to come to the Police Station for recording of the statement of the petitioner, the petitioner did not bother to come till 7th July, 2000, and therefore, the delay, if any, in commencing the investigation, consequent to the order of the Magistrate, was solely attributable to the petitioner, and there was no intention on the part of the respondents to flout the orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.