KHURSHED JUNAID ANSARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has sought the following substantive and interim reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was illegally detained by the police, at the behest of the society members and that the respondent No.5 - Jitendra Vankoti, Senior Inspector of Police, Naya Nagar Police Station, asked him to vacate the flat occupied by him, failing which he will have to spent his life in jail. The petitioner has further alleged that undue pressure was put on the petitioner by the respondent No.5 to vacate the flat immediately and only when the petitioner succumbed to the alleged illegal demand of the respondent No.5 that the petitioner came to be released on the condition that he hand over the said flat to Pradeep Nair. Pursuant to the allegations made by the petitioner that he was illegally detained by the police of the Naya Nagar Police Station, Mira Road (East), Thane, we directed the police of the Naya Nagar Police Station, to forthwith take into the custody of the CCTV footage of the said police station on 11/6/2023 from 4:00 to 9:00 p.m. as well as collect the footage from the area, which covers the alleged incident in the society. The same was done vide order dated 16 th June 2023. By the very said order, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Zone - I was directed to monitor the investigation of the said case and the CCTV footage was directed to be taken into the custody, at the earliest and in any event within 72 hours.

(3.) On 22/6/2023, the learned APP submitted that the petitioner did not have a single document to show his right, title and interest in the property in question, of which possession was sought. He submitted that even the Agreement for Sale allegedly entered into between the parties i.e. the petitioner and one Rajendra, had not been signed by the said Rajendra. The same was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rajendra had not signed the said document i.e. Agreement for Sale. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the same, he was put into possession by the society, by giving their NOC. We in our said order dtd. 22/6/2023 had observed that "we fail to understand how society can put the petitioner into possession without there being any valid agreement between the petitioner and Rajendra for the sale of premises in question." On the said date, the learned APP sought time to file a detailed affidavit to show as to how the petitioner had cheated Rajendra and his family as well as other persons and that the petitioner had suppressed certain material documents and facts and approached the Court with unclean hands, warranting imposition of costs on the petitioner. Learned APP had also submitted that presently the investigation of the said case is being done by ACP, Navghar Division, since the petitioner had made certain allegations against the police of the Navghar Police Station.