The Court dismissed a criminal writ petition asking to transfer an investigation to CBI or SCID. The bench found no evidence of slackness, citing the IO's affidavit showing progress pending expert opinion.
The petition asking for transfer of investigation was dismissed.
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.
1
16 wp.1190.10
ndm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1190 OF 2010
Devnath Satyadev Tiwari. ... Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents
Mr. M.R.Jhakde for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P.Yagnik. APP for the State.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR and P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : 27th September, 2010.
P.C.
1 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that investigation of Crime No. I-33 of 2010 registered with Ulhasnagar Police Station, Ulhasnagar for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (B) of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 be transfered to Central Bureau of Investigation or the State Crime Investigation Department.
2 The Investigating Officer Mr. Sunil Pralhad Tawade, Police Sub-Inspector has filed the affidavit dated 01st September, 2010. He has
2
16 wp.1190.10
mentioned the steps taken by him after taking over the investigation. At present, he is waiting for the opinion of the handwriting expert. The affidavit also refers to the communication sent by the Petitioner indicating that neither he nor his wife would visit the police station for recording of their statements. The question is whether the investigation of Crime No.I-33 of 2010 is being conducted in proper manner. The fact that the Petitioner has been making grievance about the activities of the opposite party since year 2000, is not relevant to answer the relief claimed in this petition. In the context of the relief in this petition, we have to consider as to whether the Investigating Officer has shown any slackness in the investigation or that whether he has failed to investigate the case in a proper manner. Indeed, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the Investigating Officer has not attended the matter with utmost dispatch. However, the reply filed by the Investigating Officer gives justification and also discloses the movement of the investigation from time to time and the fact that now the Investigating Officer is waiting for the opinion of the handwriting expert as the allegation is one of forgery and fabricated documents.
3 Thus understood, it is not possible to accede to the request of the Petitioner to transfer the investigation of the case to some other agency. No specific grievance against the present Investigating Officer has been specified in the petition and further that the Petitioner has not bothered to counter the assertions made by the Investigating Officer in
3
16 wp.1190.10
his reply affidavit dated 01st September, 2010. In the circumstances, this petition should fail. The same is dismissed. However, we hope and trust that the Investigating Officer would continue with the investigation and comply with the directions of the Magistrate to be issued from time to time.
4 Petition disposed of on the above terms.
[ P.D. KODE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the investigation of the case is being conducted in a proper manner.
Whether the Investigating Officer has shown slackness in investigating the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devnath Satyadev Tiwari
The State of Maharashtra
A.M. KHANWILKAR
P.D. KODE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
