Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1212 (BOM)

NILIMA RAGHUNATH MALODE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2015-05-08

A.B.CHAUDHARI, P.N.DESHMUKH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule heard forthwith. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a Judicial Officer and presently working as Assistant Charity Commissioner and Assistant Registrar of Societies under the Societies Registration Act, has filled the petition with the following prayers :- 1. Issue direction to respondent No. 02 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No. 03 without following due process of law in the interest of justice. 1A) To quash the F.I.R. No. 3586 dated 30-3-2015 under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered against the petitioner on the complaint of Respondent No. 3 with Respondent No. 2, which is at Annexure-D, in the interest of justice. Facts : 3. The petitioner is a Member of Judiciary. She was posted to work as Assistant Charity Commissioner at Nagpur and is also having the powers of Assistant Registrar of Societies at Nagpur. She has been discharging her duties at Nagpur. On 16-2-2015, Dr. Lata Omprakas Mahto filed a proposal for registration of the society viz. Shanti Bahuudeshiya Shaikshanik Sanstha, Nagpur, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is mentioned at the end of the application that the registration charges of Rs. 50/- would be paid and the said society should be registered. The application was received on 16-2-2015 and registered as Application No. 158/15. After the receipt of the application, it was posted to 16-3-2015 for compliances to be made by the applicant. However, on 12-3-2015 the respondent No. 3 appears to have gone to the Office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and she filed an application for taking the case on Board for filing the documents in support of the proposal submitted by her. The application was placed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner i.e. the petitioner and the petitioner allowed the said application for taking the case on Board and the documents as per her request and then posted the case for orders on 16-3-2015 i.e. original date. 4. The petitioner never knew the respondent No. 3 nor she was called on 12-3-2015 nor she had appeared at any time before the petitioner obviously because the application was to be filed in the office, which she had filed on 16-2-2015 and for compliance the date viz. 4. The petitioner never knew the respondent No. 3 nor she was called on 12-3-2015 nor she had appeared at any time before the petitioner obviously because the application was to be filed in the office, which she had filed on 16-2-2015 and for compliance the date viz. 16-3-2015 was given to her knowledge and, therefore, there was no occasion for any personal communication between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 much less person to person nor there was any occasion to have any dialogue. The petitioner, however, learnt that on the same day i.e. on 12-3-2015 at about 6.00 p.m., the respondent No. 3 moved some application before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, complaining therein that though the respondent No. 3 is a Higher Ranking Officer of the Rank of Secretary to Government of India, she was required to wait from 3.45 to 5.45 p.m. in the office of the petitioner and, therefore, action should be taken against the petitioner. Not aware of anything, the petitioner was surprised to see the Police Sub Inspector from Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur in her office on the next day i.e. 13-3-2015, who informed her that the respondent No. 3 had filed a complaint against her that the petitioner had abused respondent No. 3 in the name of her caste and, therefore, enquiry was being made under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner did not get any First Information Report nor the Police Officer gave her any copy. She then filed the instant petition in this Court without enclosing First Information Report. 5. Thereafter, she received the First Information Report and filed an application for amendment in this Court and circulated this petition on 30-4-2015 for 2.30 p.m. asking for urgent interim order of stay of First Information Report Proceedings. This Court had allowed the petitioner's counsel to move the matter at 2.30 p.m., but since the counsel for the respondent No. 3 was not before the Court as the case was not obviously notified in the Bar Cause List, this Court did not grant any interim relief but granted leave to amend since the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner received the copy of the First Information Report and wanted to amend the petition before the next date. Hence, this Court granted leave to amend and posted the matter on 2-5-2015 for further hearing. The petitioner submits that looking to the contents of the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No. 3 it is clear that same is false and made with an oblique motive of obtaining registration of the society. The present petition is, thus, filed for the said reliefs. Arguments : 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has averred in the original petition as well as in the amended portion that the petitioner never came in personal contact with the respondent No. 3 and so also was not knowing her and, therefore, the question of saying anything to her, much less about caste, is false and baseless and the First Information Report lodged by her appears to have been lodged with a view to pressurize the petitioner for issuance of the registration as per her desire on 12-3-2015 itself when in regular course the case was already fixed for 16-3-2015. It is then contended that the respondent No. 3 appears to be a Member of the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis and appears to have got enraged with the fact that the petitioner did not want to pass orders on 12-3-2015 itself as desired by the respondent No. 3. The judicial proceedings in the Courts including the Court of Assistant Commissioner are required to be taken in accordance with the practice and procedure and not in accordance with the whims and caprice of any person, howsoever high with status politically or otherwise she/he may be. At any rate the petitioner never knew about the respondent No. 3 getting red in anger. The petitioner now understands that the respondent No. 3 again went in deep anger when the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur whom she told her status as Hon'ble Member of a National Commission, also declined to advise the petitioner to pass orders on 12-3-2014 itself in favour of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner, therefore, submits that she did not at all know the respondent No. 3 or her caste nor did petitioner had any encounter with her in her life nor she has made any remarks as alleged by the respondent No. 3 in the First Information Report. The petitioner, therefore, submits that she did not at all know the respondent No. 3 or her caste nor did petitioner had any encounter with her in her life nor she has made any remarks as alleged by the respondent No. 3 in the First Information Report. The learned counsel submits that a Judicial Officer like the petitioner would never indulge in such kind of alleged act and the petitioner is busy in her working and performing her duties as Assistant Charity Commissioner doing judicial work. In fact, the staff of the office of the petitioner in the office as well as in her chamber, was present throughout and if there is a semblance of truth in what the respondent No. 3 has alleged in the First Information Report, same should be come out from at least one staff member. The counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing of the First Information Report. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was lastly working on the post of Associate Professor on contractual basis from 4-6-2012 for the period of 120 days and she was allotted Bungalow No. 3 in the Campus of Government Medical College and was residing there. She, however, resigned from the post of Associate Professor on 28-1-2014 but did not vacate the Bungalow No. 3 after resignation. She had made an application for retention of bungalow No. 3 for a period of six months with a reason that she was appointed as a Member of National Commission for Safai Karmacharis and will get residence at New Delhi within 5 to 6 months. But no order was passed on her application and she continued to reside in the bungalow No. 3 unauthorizedly which she vacated on 16-4-2014 after filing of the instant writ petition. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor then contended that the concerned Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of almost all the witnesses including the staff member of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, so also of the person accompanying the respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. The learned Additional Public Prosecution has submitted his case diary with all statements before us. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also invited our attention to the affidavit filed on 28-4-2015 by the investigating Officer in which the gist of the statements of the witnesses has been recorded. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecution has submitted his case diary with all statements before us. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also invited our attention to the affidavit filed on 28-4-2015 by the investigating Officer in which the gist of the statements of the witnesses has been recorded. 8. Shri Y.B. Mandpe, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3 vehemently opposed the petition and argued that yet the police has not completed the investigation and have not taken any action on the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner though serious cognizable offence against the petitioner is made out. According to Shri Mandpe, the respondent No. 3 has vacated the Government Bungalow No. 3 in the Government Medical College premises and insofar as the occupation in the Bungalow No. 3 after filing the application for extension of six months is concerned, Shri Mandpe submitted that whatever the charges are to be levied according to law for occupation, can be levied but then her application should have been decided by the Department and, therefore she was not at fault in occupying the bungalow even after her resignation. The respondent No. 3 had lodged the written complaint about the incident to the Joint Charity Commissioner also immediately after the incident but the Joint Charity Commissioner also did not take any action and that is why she had no other option but to file the First Information Report to the concerned Police Station. He, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. Consideration : 9. We have perused the writ petition as well as the case diary of the investigation produced before us. We have also seen the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer. We have carefully perused the First Information Report lodged by the respondent No. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties at length. We have given our conscious consideration to the entire matter. 10. It clearly appears from the record and diary submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the respondent No. 3 had resigned from the post of Associate Professor from the Medical College, Nagpur on 14-1-2014 but then she continued to occupy the Bungalow No. 3 without prior permission from the competent authority till she vacated on 16-4-2015. 10. It clearly appears from the record and diary submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the respondent No. 3 had resigned from the post of Associate Professor from the Medical College, Nagpur on 14-1-2014 but then she continued to occupy the Bungalow No. 3 without prior permission from the competent authority till she vacated on 16-4-2015. It is a fact that she had applied for extension for residing in the said Bungalow for a period of six months on the ground that she was appointed as a Member of National Commission for Safai Karmacharis and would get official residence at New Delhi and, therefore, she wanted extension. The reason that she wanted to retain the Bungalow No. 3 because her daughter was studying in 12th standard at Nagpur is not mentioned in that application, which reason she has stated in para No. 9 of her affidavit in reply dated 28-4-2015. Be that as it may, it is for the competent authority of the Public Works Department to decide as to whether they would charge penal rent, electricity and water charges from her, particularly when the competent authority had not decided her application for retention of the said Bungalow for a period of six months. We do not want to say anything further in that connection. 11. It appears that the respondent No. 3 was appointed by the Government of India as a Member of the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis. It appears that by virtue of the said appointment she happened to adorn the coveted post and thought that she supposedly being of the rank of the Secretary to the Government of India, thought that all the public servants including the Members of the Judiciary like the Assistant Charity Commissioner are under her command. The diary shows that the Under Secretary Mr. Dinesh Kochar issued a letter dated 20-4-2014 to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra about the tour programme of the respondent No. 3 i.e. Hon'ble Member from 23-4-2015 by flight to Mumbai from Nagpur. This shows that the respondent No. 3 is really occupying a high post in the said Commission. 12. Dinesh Kochar issued a letter dated 20-4-2014 to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra about the tour programme of the respondent No. 3 i.e. Hon'ble Member from 23-4-2015 by flight to Mumbai from Nagpur. This shows that the respondent No. 3 is really occupying a high post in the said Commission. 12. This Court is hardly concerned with the status of the respondent No. 3 but reference is being made because in respect of the First Information Report in question with reference to her Tour Programme from Nagpur to Mumbai under Letter dated 21-4-2015, the Investigating Officer i.e. the Assistant Police Commissioner, Sitabuldi, Nagpur City, Nagpur was directed to remain present on 23-4-2015 at 12 o'clock at Sahyadri Guest House, Mumbai for the meeting in which respondent No. 3 was to remain present. Not only that it further appears that as per the directions of his superiors, the Assistant Commissioner of Police along with the records of First information Report lodged in Sitabuldi Police Station went with all the papers to Mumbai and again recorded the statement of respondent No. 3 on 23-4-2015 at Mumbai. In fact, her statement was recorded at Nagpur on 2 occasions. It then appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Investigating Officer wrote to the D.C.P. Nagpur Zone No. 1 that in the meeting at Mumbai which he attended, respondent No. 3 was repeatedly insisting for effecting immediate arrest of the petitioner in the presence of other high ranking Officers at Sahyadri Guest House, Mumbai. The report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police shows that except the complainant i.e. the respondent No. 3, none stated about what the respondent No. 3 has alleged about casteist remarks in the First Information Report and on the contrary the door of the chamber of the petitioner at the time of incident was closed and it was not possible to hear anything as to what conversation took place inside the chamber. The conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer is that respondent No. 3 felt insulted because her insistence for special favour she being very important person to decide the case of registration of her society out of turn by taking the case on Board on 12-3-2015 in spite of regularly posted date 16-3-2015 was not accepted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner as per her desire. It appears that in the statement of one Manoj Mangal Sandekar dated 27-4-2015, who is said to have gone with the respondent No. 3 in the Office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, that he was with her but no incident took place in his presence. But, his madam, the respondent No. 3 was not given any response or respect by the petitioner and, therefore, he and respondent No. 3 went to the Joint Charity Commissioner, who also, according to the respondent No. 3, did not give her any response. We have also perused her statement recorded at Mumbai on 23-4-2015. Careful perusal of the said statement dated 23-4-2015 shows that the respondent No. 3 did not see or hear the petitioner as such uttering any words in the name of her caste or community but she says that she heard the offending words from inside the chamber presumably used by the petitioner addressed to the Superintendent Shri Wagh. It is not her case that person to person the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had any encounter any time in the past anywhere or even on 12-3-2015. Even Manoj Mangal Sandekar, who was accompanying her, did not hear anything nor has he supported her. We have carefully seen the statements of the staff members of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and we find that according to all of them no said incident at all took place as alleged by the respondent No. 3. 13. Apropos to the above overall analysis and the pleadings of the parties before us, we find that the respondent No. 3 has not alleged even remotely that earlier to filing of the application for registration of the Society, at any point of time in her life the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 were knowing each other either in the name of caste, community or as the case may be. There is no iota of even allegation anywhere by respondent No. 3 that the petitioner had any reason to know about the caste or community of the respondent No. 3 either before the date of incident or on the date of the incident nor respondent No. 3 has stated so giving any basis for saying so. There is no iota of even allegation anywhere by respondent No. 3 that the petitioner had any reason to know about the caste or community of the respondent No. 3 either before the date of incident or on the date of the incident nor respondent No. 3 has stated so giving any basis for saying so. We are, therefore, compelled to draw inference that it is highly improbable and impossible for us to believe that a Judicial Officer drawn from the Judiciary to hold the post of Assistant Charity Commissioner, performing judicial functions, would hurl any type of insult or intimidation as claimed by the respondent No. 3 in her First Information Report without any acquaintance, encounter or without any rhyme or reasons or quarrel or agitation. It is not the case of the respondent No. 3 that she met the petitioner personally in her chamber at any time and that then the incident took place. On the contrary, from the following facts we think, self-pride and self-parody of respondent No. 3 that she being a Member of the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis was of the high rank of Secretary to the Government of India must be saluted by one and all including the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the petitioner a member of Judiciary which is destructive of the independence of judiciary. The fact that she could move the State machinery and call the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nagpur (the I.O.) to Mumbai and insist for arrest of the petitioner and get her third or fourth statement recorded at Mumbai shows her grotesque behaviour and a dogmatic attitude and ugly demonstration of acquisition of governmental power. We cannot and do not accept such intemperate and nasty behaviour with the judicial officer. 14. Harking back, we find that the respondent No. 3 made an application for registration of her society on 16-2-2015 which is clear from the order sheet and after filing the application next date given was 16-3-2015 for compliance. It appears from the First Information Report that the respondent No. 3 was on Maharashtra Tour with effect from 9-3-2015 and on 12-3-2015 she was at Nagpur and had a meeting in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and after finishing the meeting at about 11.00 a.m. she went to the Office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner at about 2.30 p.m.. It appears from the First Information Report that the respondent No. 3 was on Maharashtra Tour with effect from 9-3-2015 and on 12-3-2015 she was at Nagpur and had a meeting in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and after finishing the meeting at about 11.00 a.m. she went to the Office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner at about 2.30 p.m.. She was fully knowing that the next date 16-3-2015, was for compliance. Having gone in the office, she filed an application for taking the case on Board on her letter-head of National Commissioner for Safai Karmacharis and stated therein that her case for registration of society was fixed for 16-3-2015 but since she was to go to Mumbai for Tour from 16-3-2015, she would not be able to attend on that date and, therefore, her case should be taken on Board for filing the documents. At the bottom of the application, there is an order made by the petitioner allowing her application for the reasons stated, which shows total absence of malice or ill will as alleged by the respondent No. 3. Her application having been allowed, it appears that she wanted that the final orders should also be passed by the petitioner on the same date namely 12-3-2015, when as a matter of fact, the case was posted for 16-3-2015. The First Information Report further shows that she waited in the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner up to 5.45 p.m. but was not called by the petitioner and, therefore, she was restless and felt insulted and, therefore, asked Mr. Wagh, the Superintendent to ask the petitioner about her case. The First Information Report says that Mr. Wagh, the Superintendent had gone inside and then she was awaiting outside the chamber when she heard offending words from the petitioner to Shri Wagh, the Superintendent as to why he should think about Safaiwali woman and thereafter then she went to the Office of the Joint Charity Commissioner Shri Matte and told him the entire incident by giving an application. But, Shri Matte told her that he would never tell the judicial officer i.e. the petitioner to pass particular order as desired by respondent No. 3 as he cannot interfere with the work of a Judicial Officer. 15. But, Shri Matte told her that he would never tell the judicial officer i.e. the petitioner to pass particular order as desired by respondent No. 3 as he cannot interfere with the work of a Judicial Officer. 15. Thereafter, she left fuming from the Office of the Charity Commissioner and lodged the First Information Report at 8.45 p.m. with the Police Station, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. It is interesting to note that she filed the written application with Shri Matte, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur at about 6.00 p.m. As recorded in application Annexure C the application was received at 6 p.m. This is a crucial aspect and is a very important evidence that respondent No. 3 is deviant. This application was drafted by her immediately after the alleged incident at 5.30 p.m. The gist of this application reads thus : "I had made an application for taking the case on Board on 12-3-2015 which was granted by Mrs. L.R. Malode. But, I wanted copy of that application but I was deliberately made to wait for two hours even after the date. I am a person of the rank of Secretary of the Government of India Rank B and still without any reason I was unnecessarily required to sit in the Office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner from 3.45 to 5.45 p.m. and it was not possible to know on that date to come and Xerox copy of the application should be given immediately and the High Rank Officer like me should be given justice for the trouble given to me." 16. The entire above application, which is a contemporaneous evidence, does not say word that the petitioner had hurled any insulting/intimidating or offending remarks in the name of the caste or community at anybody. This clearly shows that the alleged incident described by the respondent No. 3 had never happened. The entire above application, which is a contemporaneous evidence, does not say word that the petitioner had hurled any insulting/intimidating or offending remarks in the name of the caste or community at anybody. This clearly shows that the alleged incident described by the respondent No. 3 had never happened. The respondent No. 3 has then made a statement in the Police Station, Sitabuldi, Nagpur on 30-3-2015 that she was residing in the Bungalow No. 3 with due permission from the Dean of the Government Medical College, Nagpur but in para No. 5 of the affidavit dated 13-4-2015 the Dean has stated that no orders were passed on her application for retaining the Bungalow and, therefore, it is clear that her statement that with due permission she was overstaying in the Bungalow, even after resignation when she was not entitled to residence for a single day, is false. 17. To sum up, we find that none of the allegations in the First Information Report make out any case for constituting the offence under section 31 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On the contrary, the respondent No. 3 herself states that she over heard presumably as per her impression that the petitioner from the chamber of the petitioner, the Judicial Officer uttering offending words. Thus, we think this case squarely falls within the parameters 1, 5 and 7 given in para No. 24 of the decision in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335. which we quote as under : "24. In the State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal this Court in the back ..... which we quote as under : "24. In the State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal this Court in the back ..... " (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused." " (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." " (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." CONCLUSION : 18. In the light of the above discussion, what we find is that the respondent No. 3, having become a Member of the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis, felt much elevated that too in the rank of Secretary to Government of India that she took non decision of her for registration of her society as per her desire on 12-3-2015 itself by taking the case on Board, a great insult. She got thoroughly enraged as to why the petitioner did not pass orders in her favour on 12-3-2015 itself even though the case was actually posted for orders on 18-3-2015. She thought the petitioner being a Government Officer must listen to her command irrespective of the practice and procedures in the Judicial Courts merely because she is a Member of the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis. That the respondent No. 3 got fully angry at the petitioner and out of her vitriolic attitude lodged a false F.I.R. by making total misuse and abuse of the provisions of section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. We do not find anything wrong with the petitioner in not making the final orders on 12-3-2015 as desired by the respondent No. 3 because the case was posted already for 16-3-2015 and in seriatum in earlier cases, orders were required to be passed first. However, the ego of respondent No. 3 was hurt. We do not find anything wrong with the petitioner in not making the final orders on 12-3-2015 as desired by the respondent No. 3 because the case was posted already for 16-3-2015 and in seriatum in earlier cases, orders were required to be passed first. However, the ego of respondent No. 3 was hurt. She went ahead, misused her position as a Member of the Commission by calling a meeting at Mumbai in Sahyadri Guest House on 23-4-2015 and asked the concerned Police Officer to report to her at Mumbai in Sahyadri Guest House with all papers and accordingly, at the cost of Government expenditure the Officers went to the Sahyadri Guest House, at Mumbai, recorded her statement where she demanded arrest of the petitioner by hook or crook, as observed by us from the record. We cannot countenance such type of conduct and any such attempt to undermine, pressurize or trying to put a judicial officer in trepidation or under fear about use of section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for such oblique motive must be nipped in the bud. We think it is our duty to protect a subordinate judicial officer from such brazenly endevours. 19. We hasten to add that/such type of complaints for rampant misuse of the provisions of section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989, are largely being filed particularly against Public Servants/ quasi judicial/judicial officers with oblique motive for satisfaction of their vested interests. We think the learned Members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the discipline in the judicial Courts and social fabric of the society is not damaged or ruined. They must ensure that exaggerated vested versions should not be reflected in the criminal complaints having the outrageous effect on independence of judicial and quasi judicial authorities so also the public servants. We cannot tolerate anybody to put them in a spooked, chagrined and fearful state while performing their public duties and functions. We also think that a serious re-look at the provisions of the Act of 1989 which are being now largely misused is warranted by the Legislature, of course, on the basis of pragmatic realities and public opinion. 20. In the result, we find that the present petition must succeed. We also think that a serious re-look at the provisions of the Act of 1989 which are being now largely misused is warranted by the Legislature, of course, on the basis of pragmatic realities and public opinion. 20. In the result, we find that the present petition must succeed. We, therefore, make the following order. Order i. Criminal Writ Petition No. 251 of 2015 is allowed. ii. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 1A (amended) with costs in the sum of Rs. 10000/- payable by respondent No. 3 to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur within four weeks from today.