1/4 14 WP 2032-18.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2032 OF 2018 Ataur Reheman Mohd. Hashim Ansari .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent … Dr. Uday Warunjikar, a/w Ms. Sonali Chavan, for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta D Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. Sandeep Ramraje, PSI, Bhiwandi Police Station. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ. DATED : 4th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C:- 1. The present petition seeks issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to the respondent to investigate the offence and submit a report to this Court within the stipulated timeline. 2. Heard learned counsel Ms. Sonali Chavan, along with Advocate Warunjikar for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the order passed by this Court in the first round of litigation, when the petitioner had approached the Court agitating the same grievance about not lodging of the FIR in relation to an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 28/03/2017 and for direction to the State CID to investigate the crime. Ashish ASHISH SAHEBRAO MHASKE Digitally signed by ASHISH SAHEBRAO MHASKE Date: 2025.11.07 19:30:34 +0530 2/4 14 WP 2032-18.doc The Division Bench on 13/09/2017 while entertaining Writ Petition No.2595 of 2017, specifically directed thus:- “3. In our view, it would be just and proper to direct the Respondent No.2 herein i.e. the Senior Inspector of Police, City Police Station, Bhiwandi to look into the complaint of the Petitioner dated 28/03/2017 and take appropriate decision thereon within two weeks from date. This would be without being influenced by the said communication dated 02/08/2017 addressed by the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner. The outcome of the said inquiry to be communicated to the Petitioner. It would be contingent upon the said communication that the Petitioner can decide the future course of action. The Petitioner would remain present before the Senior Police Inspector, City Police Station, Bhiwandi on 18/09/2017 at 11.00 am and on such subsequent days if required by the Senior Police Inspector. In so far as other reliefs are concerned, the said reliefs are kept open for being claimed at the appropriate time. The photocopy of the letter dated 02/08/2017 is taken on record. With the aforesaid directions, the above Writ Petition is disposed of.” 3. Upon the said Writ Petition being disposed of, the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 18/09/2017, and as directed by this Court, on 7/2/2018 the petitioner was informed that there is no material sufficient to register an offence, and therefore the complaint has been classified as NC (Non-cognizable) offence, and an intimation to that effect has been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhiwandi. 4. The counsel for the petitioner would urge before us that when the petitioner sought the genesis of this conclusion, he was informed that since the offence is under investigation, the material could not be supplied. 5. It is a specific contention raised before us that when the Court had directed an FIR to be registered, the authorities have chosen to file an NC. Ashish 3/4 14 WP 2032-18.doc We do not agree to the submission advanced before us, and firstly, we find that on 13/09/2017, this Court never directed registration of an offence but directed the Senior Inspector of Police, City Police Station, Bhiwandi, to look into the complaint of the petitioner dated 28/03/2017, and take appropriate decision thereon within two weeks, and it was also directed that the outcome of the inquiry be communicated to the petitioner. This direction has been complied with, as subsequent to the passing of the order, the statement of the petitioner was recorded. However, ultimately, since the investigating officer did not find any sufficient material to register an offence, the complaint resulted into NC. 6. The petitioner is now agitating the very same grievance, as it is his grievance that he has sustained injuries in the incident and the medical certificate was placed before the authority, but in utter ignorance of the said report an NC has been registered. We must particularly note that the scope for interference in the decision of the investigation is limited, and merely because there is a discharge card indicating that the petitioner was hospitalized for three days and later came to be discharged, in absence of any material being brought on record or the witnesses evidencing such an incident having taken place, the investigating officer arrived at a conclusion that the offence cannot be registered and the complaint has resulted into NC. In any case, now period of almost eight years has lapsed since the incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 2017, and Ashish 4/4 14 WP 2032-18.doc therefore, we intend to draw closure on the said issue. Hence, we dismiss the Writ Petition, as we find that the direction issued earlier in the first round of litigation has been complied with, and we are not entitled to delve into the justiciability of the said decision, which is already communicated to the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court. 7. Writ Petition stands dismissed. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK,J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Ashish