<p>The Bombay High Court on Tuesday warned the city police against using the court machinery to settle personal scores and for lodging FIRs as per their "whims and fancies".</p>.<p>A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan rapped the suburban Vakola police for initially registering a case against activist Anjali Damania for wrongful restrainment of a businessman, then filing a primary chargesheet, but later submitting a supplementary chargesheet stating no offence was made out. </p>.<p>Damania had moved the high court seeking a quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged in January 2021. According to the prosecution, Damania had wrongfully restrained a businessman. </p>.<p>Her advocate Archit Jaykar told the high court that the police, in a supplementary chargesheet, claimed the complaint was false and there was malice.</p>.<p>Additional public prosecutor K V Saste said the complainant never appeared before the police to record his statement during the probe.</p>.<p>"Based on the complaint statement and witness statements, a chargesheet was filed. Later, a supplementary chargesheet was filed saying the complaint was false," Saste said.</p>.<p>The bench then sought to know why the police filed the first chargesheet when the complainant failed to appear.</p>.<p>"Police cannot go back and forth like this. FIRs cannot be filed at the police's whims and fancies. You (the police) cannot use the court machinery to settle your personal scores. This is not a platform for all this," the court said.</p>.<p>It directed Saste to take instructions from a senior police official on the issue and posted the matter for hearing on March 2.</p>
<p>The Bombay High Court on Tuesday warned the city police against using the court machinery to settle personal scores and for lodging FIRs as per their "whims and fancies".</p>.<p>A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan rapped the suburban Vakola police for initially registering a case against activist Anjali Damania for wrongful restrainment of a businessman, then filing a primary chargesheet, but later submitting a supplementary chargesheet stating no offence was made out. </p>.<p>Damania had moved the high court seeking a quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged in January 2021. According to the prosecution, Damania had wrongfully restrained a businessman. </p>.<p>Her advocate Archit Jaykar told the high court that the police, in a supplementary chargesheet, claimed the complaint was false and there was malice.</p>.<p>Additional public prosecutor K V Saste said the complainant never appeared before the police to record his statement during the probe.</p>.<p>"Based on the complaint statement and witness statements, a chargesheet was filed. Later, a supplementary chargesheet was filed saying the complaint was false," Saste said.</p>.<p>The bench then sought to know why the police filed the first chargesheet when the complainant failed to appear.</p>.<p>"Police cannot go back and forth like this. FIRs cannot be filed at the police's whims and fancies. You (the police) cannot use the court machinery to settle your personal scores. This is not a platform for all this," the court said.</p>.<p>It directed Saste to take instructions from a senior police official on the issue and posted the matter for hearing on March 2.</p>