TOTARAM HEMA WANKHEDKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some time in the year 1996, the petitioner had filed two complaints one before the concerned police station and another before the higher Officer. The complainants are dated 25-1-1996 and 3-2-1996. As no cognizance was taken, the present writ petition has been filed on 26-3-1996 immediately within the reasonable time. The present writ petition was admitted on 15-4-1996. The Court has directed the concerned Police Officer to file affidavit regarding the investigation, which he had carried out on the complaint made by the complainant for the offence under Section 420 of I. P. C.

(2.) At the time of final hearing the respondent has filed affidavit dated 28-6-2006 and basically submitted that on enquiry being made, no case was made out the theft of misappropriation and therefore, no cognizance of offence was taken. The detailed affidavit has been filed even on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however, resisted the same by relying on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (N. C. T. of Delhi) and Ors. (2006 (2) Supreme 243 : 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1187 (S. C. )) , wherein it is observed as under :-

(3.) Admittedly, no offence has been registered though the complaint is for the cognizable offence. In view of the above clear position of law and fact, there is no point now directing the petitioner to file private complaint as contended by the learned A. P. P. appearing for the respondent-State.