http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.)  4131 of 2005

PETITIONER: Sanjay Sitaram Khemka

RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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\005"

       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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.