- (1.)Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi learned senior counsel appearing for Petitioner in support of this writ petition. This writ petition is filed with lots of agony and it is submitted that in spite of an order passed by this Court on 22nd November, 2013 in earlier SLP(C) No. 4264-4266 of 2013 recording the willingness of the State of Maharashtra that the complaints lodged by the Petitioner will be looked into in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Ors., 2013 13 Scale 559, the appropriate order is not passed. The Petitioner contends that he has lodged serious complaints with respect to various offences against Respondent No. 8 to 13 with the authorities of the police in Mumbai and since no appropriate action was being taken he went to the High Court earlier. It was submitted by the State before the High Court that the matter had to be proceeded under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Respondent No. 8 and his family member were allowed to intervene in the matter. That order passed by the High Court was set aside by this Court by its order dated 22.11.2013. The order passed by this Court recorded that the four complaints made by the Petitioner dated 01.02.2012, 02.02.2012, 15.02.2012 and 02.03.2012 will be gone into and the concerned police officer will take decision on those complaints in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Ors., 2013 13 Scale 559.
(2.)We are informed that thereafter an order has been passed by a senior Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing dated 16.1.2014 which essentially records whatever are the grievances of the Petitioner in substance, but ultimately holds that this enquiry has not disclosed the commission of any cognizable offence which requires further action through the concerned office and hence the enquiry was closed. Mr. Rohtagi learned senior counsel submits that it is therefore that the present writ petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. He stresses the first two prayers of this writ petition. The prayer (a) is to quash and set aside the aforesaid decision and prayer (b) is to direct the investigation to be conducted by C.B.I. This is basically because as stated by the Petitioner, the concerned accused are quite powerful and therefore it is necessary that the complaints be investigated by an agency other than the investigating agency of the State of Maharashtra. This is stressed particularly on the background of the order that has been passed by the concerned police officer.
(3.)We have noted this submission of Mr. Rohtagi. There are, however, two difficulties in his way. Firstly, that if the police officers decline to took into the complaint, the ordinary procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to the complainant as held by a bench of three Judges of this Court in Aleque Padamsee and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2007 6 SCC 171. Besides, apart from the rights of the complainant, the rights of the accused also have to be safeguarded, and the accused has a right of appeal against any such determination if the complainant chooses to approach the concerned magistrate. The right of appeal has been held to be a very important right of the accused by this Court in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr., 1988 2 SCC 602.