MOHEMED ERSHAD SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Mohemed Ershad Shaikh addressed a letter dated 9.2.1996 to the learned Chief Justice which was ordered to be looked into as a writ petition being numbered as Criminal Suo Moto Writ Petition No.1 of 1996.

(2.) THE letter mentions that the said Mohemed Shaikh was engaged as a Driver of one Kanakaraj, the Product Engineer of Star Glass Co. Ltd. in the month of October 1995 and in that capacity he came in contact with the daughter of the said Kanakaraj by name Ms. Kavita. It is the assertion of Mohemed Shaikh that he and the said Kavita fell in love and got secretly married on 16.1.1996. On 22.1.1996 Kavita is alleged to have told Mohemed that her father has come to know about the marriage and, therefore, both should go out for some days and, accordingly, they went to Uttar Pradesh. It is further stated in the letter that on 3.2.1996 the said Mohemed along with Kavita cams back to Bombay and they were confronted by the father and brother of the said Kavita and some policemen. They were taken to the Missing Cell of Crime Branch, Bombay Police, Crawford Market. The girl was interrogated by the police officer and it is the assertion of Mohemed that the girl stated that she was not forced to marry Mohemed. According to Mohemed, the girl also refused to go with her parents. P.I. Parab is supposed to have asked the father of Mohemed whether some settlement is possible. The father of Mohemed and Mohemed himself declined to have any settlement. It is the assertion of Mohemed that thereafter P.I.Parab assured the father of Mohemed that nothing wrong will be done that they are married. Thereafter the entire party went to Sakinaka police station. At Sakinaka police station, senior Police Inspector Patil is alleged to have abused the said Mohemed in very dirty and insulting words and also assaulted him. It is alleged that Kavita also intervened and in the protest she was also slapped. It is further alleged that the statement of Kavita was written by constable Shirke at the direction of P.S.I. Mohan Patil of Sakinaka police station and the petitioner was handcuffed and chained at that time. It is alleged that against the wish of the said Kavita and despite protest from the said Mohemed, Kavita was threatened that unless she agrees to go to her father, Mohemed will not be spared. PSI Patil again warned that she must marry a person of the choice of her father, but Kavita refused. Kavita was forcibly taken away by her father and Mohemed was put inside the lock-up. Mohemed was released on the next day at about 12 noon. It is alleged that the acts of these persons are illegal and attract the penal sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the father of the said Kavita has confined her against her wish and she will be taken to her native place in South India and Kavita was deliberately kept out of the reach of Mohemed. Ultimately, prayer is made that the Commissioner of Police be directed to trace, locate and produce and return Kavita to the petitioner, viz., Mohemed.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the said Mohemed Shaikh is present in Court. The said girl Kavita is also personally present in Court. The parents of Kavita are also present in Court. So also the father of Mohemed is also present in Court. Mr.S.K.Jain, learned counsel appearing for Kavita, submitted that as a matter of fact, Mohemed has filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Andheri bearing No.CC 28/Misc/96 and the learned Magistrate issued search warrant. He has further pointed that on 15th March 1996 Kavita remained present before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed Kavita to appear before the police station and search warrant was called back. Obviously, this case filed by the complainant, viz., Mohemed will take its own course, according to law.