Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Rule. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 waive service. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 are duly served. None appears on their behalf. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:-

“(a) the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus or similar writ be issued against the respondents directing them to take action against (1) Police Inspector Nishikant V. Tungare, (2) Police Sub- Inspector Bhat (3) Police Sub-Inspector Sashikant Sawant and (4) Police Inspector Mahadeo Koli and/or

(b) the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus or similar writ be issued against the respondents directing them to submit the report to this Court as to what action they have taken against (1) Police Inspector Nishikant V. Tungare, (2) Police Sub-Inspector Bhat (3) Police Sub-Inspector Sashikant Sawant and (4) Police Inspector Mahadeo Koli;

(c) the damages be awarded to the petitioner for the mental agony, spoil of reputation and heavy monetary loss suffered by the petitioner.”

In the case of Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2006) 8 S.C.C. 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following pertinent observations:-

“12. The commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to the rule of law. The supervision and control has to be such that it ensures that the police serves the people without any regard, whatsoever, to the status and position of any person while investigating a crime or taking preventive measures. Its approach has to be service oriented, its role has to be defined so that in appropriate cases, where on account of acts of omission and commission of police, the rule of law becomes a casualty, the guilty police officers are brought to book and appropriate action taken without any delay.”

3. On this petition, notice was issued by this Court on 24th July 2012 and it was heard further on 30th November 2012 on which date leave to amend was sought and to add a party respondent. After that leave was granted, notice was issued to the newly added respondent with further direction that the first respondent to the petition should file a reply dealing with averments made in the petition within four weeks. The other respondents were also given liberty to file a reply. Thereafter, the petition was listed from time to time and after it was ready for admission, we have heard it.

4. The petitioner alleges that he is a Doctor by profession and practicing as Cosmetic Surgeon in Mumbai for the last 25 years. He is acclaimed and well known in his field. The respondents to this petition are the Police Officers and the State, including those attached to the concerned police station at the relevant time.

5. The petitioner states that each of these officers were at the relevant time attached to the Khar police station. Since the petitioner is skilled in his profession and reputed several high profile clients come to him. One Sheetal Bansod, came to the house of the petitioner stated to be representing one T.V.Channel and to take the interview of the petitioner. It is stated that though the interview was over, the lady followed the petitioner to his office seeking his answers to some more questions. It is alleged that during this interview, the petitioner molested the said Sheetal Bansod. An F.I.R. was lodged on 12th January 2008 and registered as C.R.No.14 of 2008. There was no preliminary investigation. The petitioner was arrested and later on released on bail. He was shocked and surprised by the conduct of Sheetal Bansod. The petitioner alleges that one more similar complaint was made by one Rima Gupta, who had come to the petitioner for certain surgery. The F.I.R. was lodged at her instance and is numbered as C.R.No.17 of 2008.

6. The petitioner addressed a letter to the Sub-Inspector, Khar Police Station Mumbai on 8th F