MOHAMMED SIRAJ MOHD NASEEM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel Shri Maniyar for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General Shri Sawant for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner prays for action against respondents for the alleged Civil Contempt namely failure to comply with the directions issued by this Court on 23rd June 1993 while disposing of Criminal writ Petition No.970 of 1992. It appears that in respect of an incident of 15th April, 1992, the petitioner's father had lodged a complaint on 23rd April,1992 with the officer in charge of Kurla Police Station, Kurla, Mumbai-70. No action was taken on the said complaint. Being aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to take action on the said complaint, the petitioner had filed Criminal writ Petition No.970 of 1992 in this court. It was disposed of at the admission stage itself on 23rd June, 1993. This Court came to the conclusion that the complaint dated 23rd April,1992 filed by the petitioner's father disclosed commission of cognisable offence. This court, therefore, directed the first respondent-State to investigate the said complaint through DCB CID and take further step in accordance with law against all persons concerned. We find it convenient to reproduce para 6 of the said order dated 23rd June, 1993, which reads as under :- 6."after hearing both sides and perusing the material brought on record, we are of the view that the application dated 23rd April,1992 given by the father of the petitioner discloses commission of cognisable offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case we feel it necessary to direct the respondent no. 1 State to investigate the said complaint through DCB CID, Bombay and take further steps in accordance with law against all persons concerned. " THE present Contempt Petition alleges failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the said order. It is alleged that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed and committed the breach of the said order dated 23rd June 1993.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY further affidavits have been filed and we will briefly refer to the same. In the affidavit dated 1st December, 1998 filed by respondent No.2 S. S. Walishetty, Senior Inspector of Police, he has categorically admitted that there was an error in the part of the concerned Inspector Pandit on not registering a crime and only making a further enquiry as to whether it was necessary to register a crime. Respondent No.2 Walishetty admits that on account of pressure of other work, there was failure on his part to apply his mind to the order dated 23rd June 1993 passed by this court. On the report submitted by Inspector Pandit, the matter seems to have been processed by the superior officers without applying any mind to the order passed by this court. Consequently, Walishetty has given his unconditional apology for the error on his part.