(908)-WP-347-21.doc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.347 OF 2021

Mujibur Rehman Haji Israr Alam Siddiqui

Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business,

Residing at Flat No.902, 9^th floor,

‘D’ Wing, Sugra Park, Pathan Wadi,

Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E),

Mumbai-400 097

..Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

Through the Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Mumbai.

2. The Sr. Inspector of Police,

Nagpada Police Station, Nagpada,

Mumbai-400 008.

3. Ghanshyam Patil

Police Inspector, Nagpada Police

Station, Nagpada, Mumbai-400 008.

4. Parvez Iqbal S/o Abdul Salam,

Age not known, Occ: Business,

having address at opp. Shop No.7, Gr. Floor,

Mujibur Rehman S/o Haji Israr Alam

Building 28/32, Shuklaji Street,

Mumbai-400 008.

5. Arif S/o Matlub Ansari,

Age not known, Occ: Business, having

address at opp. Shop No.7, Gr. Floor,

Mujibur Rehman S/o Haji Israr Alam

Building, 28/32, Shuklaji Street,

Mumbai-400 008.

..Respondents

Mr. B. P. Pandey a/w Ms. Ridhima Mangaokar, Mr. Aayush Tiwari i/by Vivek

Pandey, Advocates for the Petitioner.

BGP. 1 of 11

(908)-WP-347-21.doc.

Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State.

Mr. J. K. Shah a/w Mr. A. G. Manurkar, Mr. Akash Vikram Singh i/by RJ Law

for Respondent Nos.4 & 5.

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &

MANISH PITALE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 18.02.2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 31.03.2021

JUDGMENT (Per Manish Pitale, J.)

1.

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by alleged failure on the part of

respondent No.2 – Senior Inspector of Police of Nagpada Police Station in

Mumbai in taking cognizance of complaints submitted by the petitioner

whereby according to him cognizable offences committed by and on behalf of

respondent Nos.4 and 5, were brought to the notice of respondent No.2. The

petitioner also seeks a direction to the said respondents for providing police

protection and assistance to the petitioner in view of alleged threats to his life

and property.

2.

The petitioner claims that he had submitted complaints on

24.01.2020, 27.10.2020 and 21.11.2020 before the respondent No.2 stating that

he was being harassed by certain persons posing as CBI officers and that all this

was at the behest of respondent Nos.4 and 5 who were preventing the petitioner

from entering certain shops in a building wherein the predecessor of respondent

No.4 was a tenant and now the said respondent is in possession of certain

portion as a tenant. According to the petitioner, despite an eviction decree in

respect of shop No.8 in a building and execution of such decree in favour of the

petitioner, the common passage leading to the said shop and the adjoining shop

was being obstructed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 so as to create nuisance not

only for the petitioner but other tenants using the common passage in the said

BGP. 2 of 11

(908)-WP-347-21.doc.

building. It is the case of the petitioner that despite favourable orders being

passed by civil courts in his favour and execution of aforesaid decree,

repeatedly obstructions were being created by respondent Nos.4 and 5, to which

the respondent No.2 and other authorities were turning a blind eye. In this

backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking aforementioned

reliefs.

3.

Mr. B. P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

vehemently submitted that the respondent No.2 had failed to act as per the

mandate of law and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(“Cr.P.C.”), particularly section 154 thereof in failing to register offences despite

repeated complaints submitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner,

this was in violation of settled position of law recognized by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Ut