MOHAMMAD HUSSEIN KASAM MOTIWALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING been dissatisfied with the functioning of the Police Department of Greater Bombay, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court and invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamous and habeas corpus together against the respondent-State in the matter of alleged abduction of his wife by respondents Nos. 4 to 6. It would be necessary to give here the synopsis, the petitioner himself has given in this petition which are liable to be dismissed in our judgment as absolutely false and fabricated :-

(2.) IN pursuance to the allegations made in the petition, this Court took a very serious view in the matter and the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay was directed to forthwith hand over the investigation to the Senior and experienced police officer of D. C. B. , C. I. D. by the order of this Court (Coram: M. L. Pendse and M. F. Saldanha, JJ.), dated 18th October, 1993. It was further directed to make report to the Court on/or before 8th November, 1993. However, in pursuance to the said order dated 18th October, 1993, the Investigating Officer Shri R. D. Dhoble, Inspector of Police, D. C. B. , C. I. D. Unit-I, Bombay, submitted a report on 8-11-1993 stating what steps they had taken for tracing out the missing lady Smt. Sherbanoo, the wife of the petitioner and sought extension of time of 30 days. It also reveals from the record that in pursuance of the directions given by the Court (A. C. Agarwal and D. K. Trivedi, JJ.) Shri S. M. Sayyed, Dy. Commissioner of Police (E. O.), Crime Branch, Bombay, in his report dated 8th April, 1994, submitted to the Court stated that what steps being taken by the Investigating Agency for tracing out the wife of the petitioner. Despite sincere efforts, they could not trace out the alleged missing lady and therefore, further one month time was sought and therefore, one month time was granted. It also reveals from the record that Mr. S. M. Sayyed, Dy. Commissioner of Police (E. O.), Crime Branch, Bombay, submitted his further report of progress in investigation of tracing out the alleged abducted lady and requested further extension of time on 5th May, 1994 and ultimately, on 20th July, 1994, Shri Shrikant B. Lomate, Senior Inspector of Police, D. C. B. , C. I. D. , Unit-I, Bombay comes with an affidavit to the Court and stated :

(3.) IT is an allegation of the petitioner in the petition that though the wife of the petitioner had been abducted by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in the broad day light and a complaint had lodged by the petitioner against them, they could not trace out his wife. From the affidavit of the Investigating Officer Mr. Shrikant B. Lomate and the evidence of Vasant Baburao Dudhsagare and Shaikh Mohd. Iqbal led us to believe that the story of abduction by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 found to be false and fabricated, masterminded by the petitioner himself with a view to harass the respondents Nos. 4 to 6 and to blame the police for failure in tracing out his alleged abducted wife for more than 2? years. It also reveals from the record that the petitioner seems to be Court Bird, he is in habit of filing false cases in the Court against his own relatives and disappearing at the time of hearing of the cases resulted into dismissal of such cases. Copies of the orders passed in such cases are produced by the prosecution in this case. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that in some causes, the order of B Summary was passed against the petitioner.