Bandra eatery owner who accused Dhoble of assault withdraws plea | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 25, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Bandra eatery owner who accused Dhoble of assault withdraws plea

The owner of a Bandra eatery, Yusuf Bhure, 64, who had moved the Bombay high court alleging loss of hearing due to assault during a raid on his establishment by assistant commissioner of police Vasant Dhoble, has withdrawn his petition after being directed to file a private complaint in a magistrate’s court.

mumbai Updated: Jun 26, 2012 16:37 IST
Mohan K Korappath

The owner of a Bandra eatery, Yusuf Bhure, 64, who had moved the Bombay high court alleging loss of hearing due to assault during a raid on his establishment by assistant commissioner of police Vasant Dhoble, has withdrawn his petition after being directed to file a private complaint in a magistrate’s court.

The decision came after deputy commissioner of police Pratap Dighavkar filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender and his medical report does not show that he had suffered any external injury during the raid on Moghul Sarai for allegedly serving hookah to student and minors on December 5 last year.

The state’s affidavit also backed Dhoble stating that an inquiry was conducted against him following instructions from the police commissioner, and no offence was made out against him. It further stated that since taking charge of Mumbai’s social service branch in March last year, Dhoble has registered more than 403 cases under Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and the Bombay Police Act, among others. Apart from rescuing 650 bar girls, Dhoble has also arrested 3,400 accused persons, the affidavit states.

The affidavit adds that the local police had registered 10 cases in 2010, and 11 cases in 2011, against the petitioner for various irregularities.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Taraq Sayyed argued that there may be irregularities regarding licenses for the eatery, but that did not call for damaging the petitioner’s eardrum.

A division bench of justice AM Khanwilkar and justice AR Joshi, however, pointed out that according to the medical report and statement given to the doctor by the petitioner, the assault has been referred to an unknown assailant.

How can you say now that Dhoble had assaulted Bhure, when the record shows that the assailant is unknown, the court asked. Justice Khanwilkar opined that it can be a case where something happened after Dhoble left or it can be a preexisting condition. The court suggested the petitioner move a private complaint, if need be.