JUDGMENT - VAGYANI B.B., J.:---Heard petitioner in person, Mr. K.G. Patil, learned A.P.P., for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S.G. Shinde, learned Advocate for respondent No. 4.

2. Being aggrieved by the wrongful arrest and detention in the police custody by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner, a practising lawyer, has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India for grant of compensation and direction for submission of 'B' Final Report with prosecution against respondent No. 4 for having committed an offence punishable under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. In brief the facts giving rise to this Criminal Writ Petition are as under:

3. One Rajarampant had three sons from his first wife Yamunabai namely, Vitthalrao, Shankarrao and Shrikrishnarao; and two daughters namely Babutai alias Saraswati and Shantabai. Madhukarrao is the son of Vitthalrao. Respondent No. 4 Sulabha Shendarkar is the married daughter of Shrikrishnarao, Vitthalrao, Shankarrao and Shrikrishnarao are no more alive. Shrikrishnarao died in February 2000 Rajarampant is not alive and his first wife Yamunabai died prior to 1923. After death of Yamunabai, Rajarampant married second time to one Yamunabai. Petitioner, Bhaskar and Sushilabai are issues of Yamunabai II.

4. House bearing No. 3-14-15 (C.T.S. No. 810/1) of Aurangabad was owned and possessed by Rajaram. It was his self acquired property. Rajaram executed a Will in favour of Yamunabai-II on 17-5-1963 and by the said Will, Rajaram bequeathed whole of the house to her. Yamunabai, the real mother of the petitioner, executed registered Will on 12-5-1975 and bequeathed house property to the petitioner, Bhaskarrao and Madhukarrao. Garage was given to Sushilabai, the sister of the petitioner. During her lifetime, Yamunabai II sold the garage to one Satish Mehta. Yamunabai died on 18-9-1992. After her death, the names of the petitioner and other beneficiaries have been mutated in the relevant records. Bhaskarrao sold his portion of the house to Vandana Gadiya and Sarla Gadiya by registered sale deed. The petitioner and Madhukarrao, the son of Vitthalrao, sold their respective portions of the house property to one Sajed by a registered sale deed dated 22-1-2001.

5. The petitioner started his legal career as a lawyer at Aurangabad in the year 1951. He practised law till 23-12-1960. On 24-12-1960, the petitioner was appointed as Police Prosecutor. After retirement, the petitioner resumed his legal profession since 1989. Madhukar is a retired teacher.

6. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 Sulabha, the daughter of Shrikrishnarao, who happens to be the step brother of the petitioner, filed false and frivolous First Information Report at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad on 28-4-2001. According to petitioner, respondent No. 4 had absolutely no interest of whatsoever nature in the house property. However, respondent No. 4, in order to grab a share in the property, filed a false report in order to bring a pressure on the petitioner and Madhukar. Respondent No. 4 filed a report contending therein that petitioner and Madhukarrao sold the house property by committing forgery in the original registered Will of Yamunabai II. Respondent No. 4 has also filed a civil suit in the Civil Court and thereby challenged the execution of Will by Yamunabai.

7. Respondent No. 3 registered Crime No. 90/2001 under sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of First Information Report dated 28-4-2001, lodged by respondent No. 4. The crime was registered on the same day. Respondent No. 3, without application of mind, arrested the petitioner at 9.35 p.m. on 28-4-2001 and kept him in the lock up throughout the night. The petitioner, a practising lawyer of 76 years of age, sustained a rude shock on account of his illegal arrest and detention. The respondent No. 3 produced the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate at 3.00

Click Here to Read the rest of this document