Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse has imposed a cost of Rs. 25000 on a petitioner for making frivolous allegations against the police authorities and approaching the court with unclean hands.

“Be that as it may, we find that the petitioner has prima facie made frivolous and false allegations as against the police and have also approached the court with unclean hands. Hence, we dismiss the petition of the petitioner and direct the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, within three weeks from today,” the high court ordered.

The high court was considering a plea filed by Khurshed Junaid Ansari, who claimed to have been illegally detained by the Senior Inspector of Naya Nagar Police Station, allegedly at the behest of society members. Ansari asserted that the Senior Inspector and the society members demanded that he vacate the flat he occupied; otherwise, he would face a life sentence in jail.

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), VB Konde Deshmukh, argued that the petitioner failed to produce any documents proving his right, title, or interest in the property. The APP contended that the petitioner had deceived the actual owner of the property to take possession of the property.

Following an inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, it was found that the petitioner's allegations were prima facie false, frivolous, and baseless. It was pointed out in the report that the petitioner made these unfounded allegations against the investigating agency to gain control of the flat in question.

The high court in its order also highlighted that another individual, Saad Shamshuddin Ansari, had lodged a written complaint against the petitioner and his wife, alleging cheating and the unauthorized withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 49,65,000.

Furthermore, the division bench noted that the petitioner had already initiated a civil dispute, and it was discovered that the owner of the said property had not signed the agreement for the sale of the property.

“It is not in dispute that the petitioner had initiated civil dispute in the said case. Prima facie, it is not disputed that the Agreement for Sale executed between the petitioner and Rajendra had not been signed by Rajendra nor has anybody signed on behalf of Rajendra,” the bench observed.

Case title: Khurshed Junaid Ansari vs State of Maharashtra