(1) 915 Cri.WP-261.2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 261 OF 2022 PRAKASH LALCHAND BORSE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. N.P. Paliwal, Advocate holding for Mr. Chaitanya Dharurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents-State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATED : 16th September, 2026 Per Court : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has claimed direction from respondent No.2 to conduct departmental proceeding against the erring officer responsible for illegal detention of the petitioner on 05.05.2021 at Bhadgaon Police Station. Petitioner has also sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for his such illegal detention. 3. However, from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the learned A.P.P. and contents of the petition alongwith order passed by this Court on 4th July 2022, it is evident that step daughter of the petitioner had lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner on the ground that he was asking for sexual favour and in that (2) 915 Cri.WP-261.2022.odt connection even notice under Section 41 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also issued to the petitioner. Moreover, it was also reported by the concerned Investigating Officer to the concerned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhadgaon about the grounds of arrest. Thus, it appears that the concerned Investigating Officer, after lodging FIR No.94/2021 against the petitioner, complied the legal procedure before arresting him on 05.05.2021 and thereafter the petitioner was produced on 06.05.2021 before the concerned J.M.F.C. Bhadgaon who released him on bail. 4. As such, from the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer had illegally detained the petitioner without following any legal procedure. It is otherwise that, later on ‘B’ Summary was filed in the aforesaid crime. But it is clearly evident that the concerned police officer had already followed legal procedure before arresting the petitioner. 5. Under such circumstances, we do not find any substance in the petition and it stands dismissed. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE VD_Dhirde