Dismissed

Sitaram S/O. Harichandra Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2009WP/685/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, considered a Criminal Writ Petition filed by the father of a deceased person seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI. The court dismissed the petition as it found appropriate alternate remedies available to the petitioner since the police filed a 'C' Summary report. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Petition for transfer of investigation to CBI dismissed. Petitioner directed to approach alternate remedies.

Sitaram S/O. Harichandra Pawar Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.685 OF 2009

¶4

Sitaram Harishchandra Pawar ... PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS

¶7

Shri M.V. Ghatge, Advocate for the petitioner Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for the State

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 22nd September, 2009.

¶10

ORAL ORDER (PER PATIL, J.)

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is father of deceased Abhay. The Writ Petition is filed seeking directions to the Police of Police Station, Shivajinagar, Nanded that the Crime No.29/2009 be handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency for independent investigation of the matter.

¶12

¶13

In substance, the learned counsel for the petitioner based on expert’s report annexed to this petition of Dr. Bangal, and submitted that the post mortem was not performed by competent medical officer according to the Government policy; the inquest panchanama was not conducted properly; blood was not preserved for analsying chemically regarding the percentage of the alcohol in the blood of the deceased; three times the investigating officers were changed which is suspicious circumstance in this case; the time of death as mentioned by the investigating officer in this case is not reliable. Considering the past history wherein the servant of the son of the petitioner was driving along with him on two wheeler was attacked and died was not taken into consideration by the police while investigating the offence. In the submissions of the counsel, in fact the petitioner’s son was the target and wrongly the servant was murdered. The counsel further submits that, the investigating machinery has failed to investigate the case fairly, transparently and, therefore, the counsel submits that the case is required to be handed over to an independent agency.

¶14

The matter was adjourned. Notice was issued to respondents on 10.8.2009. By an order dated 17.8.2009, we have directed Superintendent of Police, Nanded to go through the

¶15

¶16

investigation papers of Crime No.29 of 2009 registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, Nanded and ascertain as to whether the investigation was conducted properly and accordingly instruct the learned A.P.P. in this regard. The matter was again adjourned. By order dated 24.8.2009, we recorded that the learned A.P.P. has produced the communication for our perusal made by Mr. Satyanarayan, Superintendent of Police, Nanded addressed to the Public Prosecutor, dated 24.8.2009. The Superintendent of Police had considered the issue regarding the cause of death of Abhay Sitaram Pawar and the issues raised in the representation made to Police Inspector, Police Station, Shivajinagar, Nanded, according to the A.P.P.

¶17

Today learned A.P.P., on instructions, submits that the Police has decided to file ‘C’ Summary report in the trial Court.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner is dissatisfied with the statement of the police.

¶19

We have perused the material placed before us. As the police has decided to file ‘C’ Summary in the trial Court, we find that the petitioner would not be remediless. The petitioner can resort to appropriate alternate remedies as provided in law. In

¶20

¶21

exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Iondia, we do not find this to be a fit case for directing the investigation to be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency. We express no opinion on merits of the matter. The criminal writ petition stands dismissed.

¶22

[ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶23

fmp/cwp68509

Sitaram S/O. Harichandra Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram S/O. Harichandra Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kanha Ramu Naik Rathod and Ors.

Ginaji @Gnyandeo Haribhau Bhalerao and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Tanaji Sadashiv Dharmadhikari Vs the State of Mah

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kerba Kundlik Chintare and Others

State of Maharashtra Vs Chandrasen Govind Kanse and Others

David Bhagwanrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.