The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed petition filed by woman psychologist seeking arrest and custodial interrogation of Member of parliament, Rajya Sabha and Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut alleging that she was being stalked and harassed by unknown men at his behest.
Dismissing the petition, a division bench of Justice SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar observed: “The prayers like a direction for arrest and custodial interrogation of respondent no.4 (Raut), search and seizure at the residential and office premises of respondent no.4 and prohibitory and injunctive reliefs, simply do not deserve countenance.”
The HC has, however, directed the chief metropolitan magistrates at Mumbai city and Bandra to decide on the cases filed by the woman expeditiously, preferably within three months.
The woman had alleged that, since 2013, she was constantly subjected to mental torture, threats, stalking, harassment, abuse, assault and attack at the behest of Raut and that she has lodged three FIRs at Vakola and Bandra police stations. However, no effective investigation has been conducted despite lapse of several years.
However, a report was submitted by police stating that in two of the cases filed by the woman, they have filed an ‘A’ Summary report which means that the allegations are true but they are not able to find the culprits. Whereas, the police has filed chargesheet against the arrested accused in the third case.
The HC has observed that in case the woman has any grievance about the persons who ought to have been added as accused, in addition to the accused sent up for trial, she could resort to other legal means.
The judges said that they cannot direct police on how to conduct investigation since it was their prerogative, however, if the court finds necessary then it can always ask the police to conduct further investigation.
“The investigation is the exclusive province of the investigating agency. Ordinarily the courts cannot interfere in the matter of investigation. The courts cannot direct as to how the investigation is to be carried out, who to be investigated into and the manner of investigation etc.,” said the HC adding: “If the Magistrate after considering the final report, finds that the investigation is unsatisfactory or incomplete or the circumstances of the case warrant further investigation, the Magistrate is empowered to direct further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code.”
The HC has asked the woman to appear before the magistrate and raise her grievance that the investigation was incomplete or unsatisfactory.
Besides, the HC noted that the FIR does not mention any specific role of Raut. “It is not the case that in the first information reports, referred to above, any role was attributed to respondent no.4 (Raut). As indicated above, the allegations against respondent no.4 range from personal to professional to familial pursuits of the petitioner. Suffice to note that the petitioner may agitate those grievances before the appropriate forums in a manner known to law, if so advised,” added the HC.
