Sanjay Sitaram Khemka Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [2006] Insc
281 (5 May 2006)
S.B.
Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan S.B. Sinha, J.
The
Petitioner herein is a businessman. He had been carrying on business in the
name and style of "JEWELS-9". His business premises is situate at
504-D, Crystal Plaza, New
Link Road, Andheri
West, Mumbai- 400 053. He claims himself to be a manufacturer of jewellery. He
claims himself to be an office bearer of the "Jewellers Association of
Greater Andheri". The contention of the petitioner was that respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 viz., M.A.K. Sheikh and Avinash Dharamadhikari herein had entered
into a criminal conspiracy against him as he had exposed their illegal acts and
corrupt practices in the media on behalf of the "JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION OF
GREATER ANDHERI" in furtherance whereof they registered five false cases
against him during the period 25.9.2003 to 16.10.2003. During the purported
investigation of the said cases, the photographs of the petitioner were
allegedly published in the media with a news story that he was a hard-core
criminal. Details of the publications in various newspapers are contained in
sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) of the Special Leave Petition. The said articles were
said to have been published in different newspapers owned/published by
respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
It is
his contention that several articles published in different newspapers were
false and baseless, the details whereof have been stated in paragraphs 9, 10
and 11 of the Special Leave Petition.
Legal
notices were served for registration of First Information Reports by the
petitioner against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. He had also addressed several
letters to high dignitaries including the President of India, the Prime
Minister of India, the Chief Justice of India, the Home Minister of India, the
Chairman, NHRC and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. He is also said
to have sent a fax to the Governor of Maharashtra. Pursuant to and in
furtherance of the purported representations made by the petitioner to the
Governor of the State of Maharashtra, he was called to the Raj Bhawan
and was given a hearing by the ADC of the Governor. However, allegedly, no
further action was taken by the said authority. He filed a Criminal Writ
Petition questioning the alleged high-handed activities of D.N. Nagar Police
and made a request for enquiry into the whole episode by the Central Bureau of
Investigation. He filed a Transfer Petition before this Court for transfer of
the said writ petition. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
The
criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 2611 of
2004 was dismissed for default on 27.1.2005. The petitioner made his Advocate
Mr. Akhilesh Singh responsible for dismissal of the said writ petition, for
which he is said to have filed a complaint against him under Section 35 of the
Advocates Act. However, on the premise that no action had been taken by the
concerned authorities, he again filed a writ petition before the Bombay High
Court praying for various reliefs which had been referred to in details in the
impugned judgment. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dismissed the
said writ petition stating:- "The petitioner appears in person and submits
that action against the respondents is liable to be taken and the above quoted
prayers are liable to be granted. For each of the prayers mentioned above, the
petitioner has effective remedy in appropriate courts. If he has grievance of
he being maliciously the remedy for him to file a complaint is open. If he is
harassed by the police officials, criminal complaint against such police
officials can be lodged in appropriate criminal court. If he has been defamed
action for defamation can be taken in appropriate criminal court. If he has
been defamed action for defamation can be taken in appropriate Court. If he
wants damages for lost of prestige he has adequate remedy to claim such damages
by way of a suit. Thus, for each prayer an independent efficacious remedy is
available to the petitioner. Instead the petitioner has chosen to come under
Article 226 with these omnibus prayers that there be investigation into the
conduct of police department and appropriate action including award of
compensation be given to the petitioner" The Petitioner is, thus, before
us.
Before
adverting to the contentions raised by the Petitioner who appeared in person,
we may notice a disturbing fact. The Petitioner had filed a writ petition being
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2006 on the self same grounds before this Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was, however, dismissed on
20.02.2006. In this case, a detailed counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf
of the State of Maharashtra affirmed by one Mr. Pradeep,
Inspector of Police, attached to the D.N. Nagar Police Station. The said
deponent has affirmed that various Complaint Petitions came to be filed against
the petitioner. It is stated that during investigation of the said cases
several facts in regard to involvement of the petitioner in connection with
several offences came to light. He has stated:- "The past of the
petitioner is quite controversial he was involved in different business and
duped the many businessman even advertising agencies, newspaper publisher and
hotel industries. He pose himself as a jeweler, diamond merchant but he has no
knowledge of said business and under the pretext of diamond merchant and
jewelers he duped the shopowners." One leading publishing house of a
newspaper also filed a counter- affidavit stating that all the publications
made in the newspaper were on the basis of official statements made by police
officials and as such no motive can be attributed to it.
The
Petitioner has filed rejoinders to the said counter-affidavits.
Having
regard to the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties before
us, we are of the opinion that no releif can be granted to the Petitioner in
this petition. The writ petition has rightly been held by the High Court to be
involving disputed questions of fact. The petitioner has several causes of
action wherefor he is required to pursue specific remedies provided therefor in
law.
A Writ
Petition, as has rightly been pointed out by the High Court, for grant of the
said reliefs, was not the remedy. A matter involving a great deal of disputed
questions of fact cannot be dealt with by the High Court in exercise of its
power of judicial review. As the High Court or this Court cannot, in view of
the nature of the controversy as also the disputed questions of fact, go into
the merit of the matter; evidently no relief can be granted to the Petitioner
at this stage. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment of
the High Court does not contain any factual or legal error warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution.
Furthermore,
the Petitioner had also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. The Petitioner at the time of issuance of notice in this
matter did not point out the said fact.
In
view of the conduct of the Petitioner also, he is not entitled to any equitable
relief in the petition for special leave.
For
the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is
dismissed accordingly.
Back