In a C.R.P. transfer application, the petitioner sought shifting of a criminal investigation from Kothurd Police Station to C.I.D. Pune alleging forgery and police collusion. The High Court rejected the transfer request, dismissing the petition despite the petitioner's claim that investigation has stalled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AJN
: 1 :
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2004 OF 2005
---------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office :
Memoranda of Coram, :
appearances, Court’s : Court’s or Judge’s Orders
orders or directions :
& Registrar’s orders. : .
---------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr.
Uday Warunjikar for the
petitioner.
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for
the State.
CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATED: 5TH OCTOBER, 2005.
P.C.:-
The petitioner has prayed that the
investigation of C.R. No.335 of 2005
registered at Kothurd Police Station
dated 6/6/2005 for the offence
punishable under sections 379, 468,
471, 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal
Code be transferred to C.I.D.,
Maharashtra State at Pune.
I have heard Ms. Dharmadhikari,
the learned counsel for the
AJN
: 2 :
petitioner. She contended that it is
the petitioner’s case that the cheque
books kept in the drawer of his office
table have been stolen by the accused
and the accused have forged the
petitioner’s signature and tried to
withdraw money from the bank. The
learned counsel contended that though
the complaint is lodged as far back as
on 6/6/2005, the police have not taken
any steps. She states that the police
are hand-in-glove with the accused.
They have not arrested the accused
and, therefore, the investigation be
transferred.
We do not find any substance in
this submission. Ms. Kantharia, the
learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State informed the court that the
accused have obtained anticipatory
bail from the sessions court at Pune.
If the sessions court at Pune had
granted anticipatory bail to the
accused, the police can certainly not
arrest the accused. Ms. Kantharia
also points out that the accused have
filed complaints against the
AJN
: 3 :
petitioner under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and the
cases are pending before the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Pune and
Satara. It is only after the accused
filed these complaints that the
present petitioner has come out with a
case that his cheque books were lost.
We do not want to express any
opinion on this aspect of the matter
but having considered the present case
in its proper perspective, we do not
feel that the investigation should be
transferred to the C.I.D. Maharashtra
State at Pune. We hope and trust that
the police will conduct the
investigation properly. The petition
is dismissed.
(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)
(ANOOP V. MOHTA)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the investigation into the theft of cheque books and forgery should be transferred from the local police station to the C.I.D. at Pune.
Whether the petitioner's version of facts about lost cheque books appears since being a victim of cheque bounce complaints.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
State
Ranjana Desai
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court