Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 3062
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
S.S. Shinde, A.M. Dhavale, JJ.
Bhushan Govardhan Bihani - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1286 of 2017
Decided On : 23-02-2018
Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. D.R. Kale, A.P.P, for the Respondents
Mandatory F.I.R. recording, limitations on police discretion, and exceptional circumstances warranting court intervention despite alternative remedies not being exhausted.
Headnote:
F.I.R. Registration - Allegations of Extortion and Intimidation - Section 154, Cr.P.C. - Section 173, Cr.P.C. - Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. - Section 482, Cr.P.C. - CBI Investigation - Fair and Impartial Investigation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to transfer complaints to CBI alleging extortion, intimidation, and kidnapping by a Member of Parliament and his associates. The police did not register the F.I.R. and carried out a preliminary enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations disclosed serious cognizable offences and mandated F.I.R. registration. It held that the police's refusal to register the F.I.R. and conduct a fair investigation was unjust and ordered immediate F.I.R. registration and investigation by a Special Team of State C.I.D.
Issues: Allegations of Extortion and Intimidation, F.I.R. Registration, Fair and Impartial Investigation, Alternative Remedy Exhaustion
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of F.I.R. recording, the limitations on police discretion in holding preliminary enquiries, and the need for fair and impartial investigations. It also highlighted the exceptional circumstances warranting the court's intervention despite alternative remedies not being exhausted.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directed immediate F.I.R. registration, and ordered investigation by a Special Team of State C.I.D., disposing of the criminal applications for intervention.
JUDGMENT
A.M. Dhavale, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, matters are taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
2. In Writ Petition no.1286 of 2017, the petitioner seeks directions to the State (respondent no.1) to transfer the complaints dated 10.10.2016, 21.11.2016 and 28.12.2016 made by his father after registration as F.I.R. to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred as ''CBI'' for brevity). Criminal Applications no.6057 of 2017 and 6132 of 2017 are for intervention by the persons named in the complaints as the accused.
3. In nutshell, the complainant''s allegations disclose that somewhere in December 2014 to March 2015, Mr. Deelip Gandhi, Member of Parliament of Ahmednagar constituency purchased a Ford Endeavour vehicle from him as he is authorised dealer in Ford brands. MR. Deelip Gandhi registered it late for getting the choice number and thereafter had complained about the performance of the vehicle, which could have been attended by the manufacturer, but he was complaining against the petitioner. It is alleged that on 29.9.2015, Sachin Gaikwad, Suvendra son of Mr. Deelip Gandhi, Pawan Gandhi and other persons associated with Mr. Gandhi forcibly kidnapped MR. Ostwal and Mr. Rasal, who were working as Sales Manager and Manager in the show room of the petitioner. There are allegations about beating, threats, extortion of money, valuable securities and documents in respect of ten Eco Ford vehicles and delivery thereof. Out of ten vehicles, nine vehicles were returned and one vehicle was retained by Deelip Gandhi for his daughter Swati for part payment of around Rs. 5 lakhs was made. Mr Deelip Gandhi used his position as a Member of Parliament and made complaints to the Minister and also to the Income Tax and Sales Tax departments to harass and pressurise the petitioner. There were regular threatening calls by Mr. Pawan Gandhi and other associates of Mr. Deelip Gandhi. The petitioner was frightened and could not dare to lodge F.I.R. for a long time. The complainant made complaint to the Prime Minister dated 10.10.2016 and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar. On 21.11.2016 he mustered up courage and lodged complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, but no F.I.R. came to be registered. The Police have carried out enquiry and have submitted a report that there was no substance in the complaint of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner claimed that registration of crime and investigation by CBI is necessary.
4. P.S.I. Gore on behalf of respondent no.2 filed affidavit, which shows that the Superintendent of Police had directed the P.S.O., M.I.D.C. police station to conduct enquiry and submit detailed report. Accordingly, enquiry was held. Several statements of material witnesses were recorded. The petitioner did not co-operate and did not produce CCTV footage and call details. The petitioner had not gone to the M.I.D.C. police station to lodge the F.I.R. His complaint was belated and was made after Sachin Gaikwad lodged the F.I.R. against him at Shrigonda police station. Respondent no.2 - Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar has also filed his affidavit on similar line. He submitted that the complaint application of the petitioner dated 21.11.2016 was disposed of in view of civil nature of dispute.
5. The two applicants intending to intervene have claimed that the petitioner had sold old car under the guise of supplying a new car purchased. The complainant himself is guilty of cheating and has filed false complaint. He has charged exorbitant road tax and has not exhausted alternative remedy. Sachin Gaikwad has claimed that amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was taken by the petitioner from him as hand loan for which he has documentary evidence. There was no case of extortion or intimidation.
6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.R. Mantri, learned A.G.P. Mr. D.R. Kale for respondent-State and Mr. V.D. Salunke and Mr. N.V. Gaware, learned Advocat
