TULSIDAS NAIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:-

(2.) We have heard the petitioner, who appears in person. The petitioner was asked, if he would like the court to appoint a counsel to represent him, but the petitioner stated that he would argue the matter himself. In respect of the prayer made at prayer clause (a), it appears that the petitioner is praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing CBI to investigate the entire case against the respondent No. 6, who is stated to be an Ex-Home Minister of the Maharashtra State. It further appears that pursuant to the reports lodged by the petitioner, an offences vide Crime Nos. 501 of 2011 and 370 of 2011 have been registered. The petitioner had lodged other reports, but the police had not taken any cognizance nor have they registered an offence against the accused named in the said reports. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a writ directing the respondents to register the offences against the accused, named by the petitioner in his reports. In addition, it seems that the petitioner is praying for issuance of a writ, directing the CBI to investigate entire allegations against respondent No. 6.

(3.) At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and ors. v. Union of India and ors., 2007 6 SCC 171 and Sakiri Vasu and State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. [: 2008 AIR(SC) 907] : [2008 ALL SCR 1890] as well as recent judgment in the case of Kunga Nima Lepcha and ors. v. State of Sikkim and ors., 2010 4 SCC 513, wherein the Supreme Court has held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, directing the police to register an offence against the accused named in the report as the person who is aggrieved by the non registration of the offence has adequate remedies i.e. of filing of a private complaint or an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In that light of the matter, therefore, the petitioner has alternate remedies of either filing a complaint case before the Magistrate or an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, this part of the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Moreover, since the offences have not been registered a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, directing the CBI to investigate "entire case" against respondent No. 6. This court also cannot issue a writ of mandamus, directing the CBI to generally enquire into the offences lodged against respondent No. 6. The relief, therefore, which is prayed for at prayer clause (a) to the petition cannot be granted.