(1) Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1664 OF 2020 Manlesh S/o Eknath Jaiswal, Age : 38 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No. 15, Bharat Nagar, Shahada Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Inspector, Shahada Police Station, Shahada, Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar 2. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shahada Dn, Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar 3. The Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar 4. Kishan S/o Laxman Najan Patil, Age : 54 Years, Occ. Police Officer, At present Pachora Police Station, Pachora, Dist Jalgaon 5. Vikrant S/o Rajendra Kachare, Age : 32 Years, Occ. Police Shahada Police Station, Shahada, Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar 6. Kailas S/o Keshav Mali, Age : 28 Years, Occ. Police Shahada Police Station, Shahada, Tq. Shahda, Dist. Nandurbar 7. Deepak S/o Waman Bhoi, Age : 40 Years, Occ. Police, Shahada Police Station, Shahada, Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar ..RESPONDENTS 2026:BHC-AUG:40191-DB (2) Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt ... Mr. B. R. Waramaa, Advocate for the Petitioner. S. J. Salgare, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 4 to 7. ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON: SEPTEMBER 02, 2026 JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J) :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has claimed following reliefs :- (A) To award compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs from Respondent No.1 on account of illegal torture and beating to petitioner in Police Station Shahada, District Nandurbar on 18.05.2020 by Respondent No.4 to respondent No.7 by holding Respondent No.1 to 7 jointly and several liable for illegal acts of torture and beating to petitioner. (B) To direct respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to supply CCTV footage for 18.05.2020 to 20.05.2020 to the petitioner and/ or send the installed CCTV at Shahada Police Station to Government Lab at Kalina, Mumbai or authorized place for recovery of recorded footage for 18.05.2020 to 20.05.2020 and to submit report to this Hon'ble Court. (3) Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt 3. According to the petitioner, he was beaten in the police station, by the Police Inspector Kishan Patil and other police officers viz. respondent Nos. 4 to 7. In view of the same, the petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent No.1 in respect of the aforesaid illegal torture and also claimed the CCTV footage of the concerned Shahada Police Station from 18.05.2020 to 20.05.2020. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that, the petitioner must be compensated for the high-handed action taken by respondent Nos.4 to 7, who beaten him mercilessly in the police station, which might have been captured in the CCTV footage of the said police station. 5. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. by relying on certain documents, strongly opposed the submissions and submits that, in fact the offence under Sections 353, 506, 188 and 268 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioner and the trial thereupon is pending in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Shahada. Pursuant to the order dated 11.06.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Shahada, a crime has already been registered against the errant police officers. However, it has been stayed by this Court in Criminal Application No.1839 of 2021, wherein quashing of the said crime is contemplated by respondent Nos.4 to 7. (4) Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt He further submitted that, since the crime is now registered against respondent Nos.4 to 7, the prayer of getting compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- appears to be premature at this juncture. So far as CCTV footage as claimed by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is already aware that no such CCTV footage was available, as it was elaborately stated in the reply by the State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.6803 of 2023 filed by the petitioner himself. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Admittedly, crime under Sections 353, 506, 188 and 268 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 120 of the Bombay Police Act has been registered against the petitioner. Moreover, pursuant to the order dated 11.06.2021 passed by the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Shahada in Criminal Misc. Application No.469 of 2020, crime against respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are the police officials, against whom the petitioner is having grievance, is also registered, in respect of beating to the petitioner. However, under the order dated 22nd June 2022, this Court, in Criminal Application No.1839 of 2021 filed by those officers, has stayed that order by way of interim relief. Not only that, but for getting the CCTV footage as claimed in this petition, the petitioner has also filed separate Writ Petition No.6803 of 2023 and the same is pending. 7. Considering these circumstances, it appears that, for the (5) Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt grievance of alleged illegal beating, the crime has already been registered against respondent Nos.4 to 7, and therefore, the prayer of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- can be considered only after result of the said criminal prosecution. Thus, the prayer in respect of compensation appears premature at this juncture. 8. So far as claim of petitioner for getting CCTV footage is concerned, the State of Maharashtra has already filed reply to the Writ Petition No.6803 of 2023 filed by the petitioner, wherein it is stated that, as per the direction of this Court in the said petition, the Special Inspector General of Police, Nashik had directed under his letter dated 31.01.2024 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Dhule to conduct preliminary inquiry. Accordingly, the inquiry was conducted and it was revealed that CCTV installed in Shahada Police Station, was not in working condition since January 2020. 9. The inquiry report also disclosed that it was the duty of the concerned In-charge of the police station to take necessary steps for repairing of the said DVR and to inform the senior officer for taking further steps. All these facts are mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply filed in the said petition on 08.10.2024. Since the said petition was filed by the present petitioner only, he was well aware about non-existence of such CCTV footage for the period from 18.05.2020 to 20.05.2020. As such, the prayer of the petitioner in this (6) Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt petition for getting those CCTV footage, has also become infructuous. 10. In view of the same, no relief, as prayed by the petitioner in this petition can be granted. In view of the same, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. (VAISHALI PTIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE YSK/