SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Sitaram Khemka
Vs
State of Maharashtra and Others
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 4131 of 2005
(S. B. Sinha and P. K. Balasubramanyan, JJ)
05.05.2006
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.