NAINA KAMANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has prayed for an order directing respondent No.2 to arrest respondent No.3 and file chargesheet against him. The relevant facts leading to this prayer may be stated in brief as follows :

(2.) THE petitioner is a Director of a company called M/s.Janson Engineering and Trading Private Limited. She resides with her husband Deepak Kamani and two daughters on the first floor of a building known as Ram Niwas at Worli. Respondent no.3 resides on the second floor of the same building. There is a litigation pending between the petitioner's family and respondent No.3 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The petitioner has alleged that on the night of 1st February, 1996 at about 9.00 p.m. respondent No.3, his wife and driver made forcible entry in her premises. At that time the petitioner's husband was not present in the house. The petitioner's cook Shyamlal tried to resist the forcible entry of respondent No.3 and his associates. However, all of them assaulted Shyamlal. The petitioner has further alleged that respondent No.3 did not spare her two daughters and also assaulted both ofthem. The petitioner's husband returned home at about 10.00 p.m. and thereafter injured Shyamlal and the petitioner's elder daughter, who has sustained injuries were taken to the Worli Police Station from where they were sent to Poddar Hospital for treatment and examination.

(3.) WE have heard Shri R.S.Desai, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Kantharia, the learned A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms.Kantharia brought to our notice that the Worli Police Station completed the investigation in C.R. No.72 of 1996 and recommended "A" Summary, which was granted by Deputy Commissioner of Police. In view of this position, the prayer made by the petitioner in the petition does not survive. However, Shri Desai, the learned advocate for the petitioner contended before us that it is not within the power of the Deputy Commissioner of Police to issue "A" Summary in the matter. According to him, it is the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the cases arising out of the local jurisdiction of Worli Police Station, who alone is competent to pass appropriate order in the matter. In support of his submission Shri Desai relied upon the decision of this High Court in Shravan Baburao Vs. N.B.Hirve 1997(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 412 wherein the question was whether a commissioner of Police or an officer nominated by him had power to grant summaries. The Division Bench comprising of Agarwal and Khandeparkar, JJ. recorded a negative finding on this point and observed in paragraph 19 and 20 as under :