Dismissed

Navinchandra Umarshi Dedhia v. Inspector of Police, Mantunga Police Station and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2011WP/1688/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner contended daughter died homicidally and sought further investigation. Court found no case for Writ Petition, rejected it, but directed police to record supplementary statement within one week.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner as available in law; directing Investigation Officer to record supplementary statement within one week.

Navinchandra Umarshi Dedhia Vs Inspector of Police… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

sat 1 wp 1688-2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1688 OF 2011

¶4

Dr.Navinchandra Umarshi Dedhia ...Petitioner
vs.
Inspector of Police,
Matunga Police Station,
Mumbai & Ors....Respondents

¶5

Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the Petitioner.
Mr.P.A. Pol, PP for the State.

¶6

CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &

¶7

U.D. SALVI, JJ.

¶8

AUGUST 5, 2011

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

1We have heard Mr.Mundargi, the learned Counsel

¶11

for the petitioner who is a doctor by profession.

¶12

2The petitioner’s daughter died an unnatural death
on 17th April, 2011 in her matrimonial home. On the basis
of his complaint, an FIR came to be registered and on
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. On committal, the

¶13

case has been registered as Sessions Case No.539/2011 for
the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read

¶14

sat 2 wp 1688-2011

¶15

with 34 of IPC.

¶16

3It is now the contention of the petitioner that
his daughter died a homicidal death and she did not commit
suicide. He also claims to have addressed letters to the
Commissioner of Police and various other authorities on
20th April, 2011 and based on the said letters, he prays
for directions for further investigation.

¶17

4It is well settled that in case, a charge is
required to be altered based on the evidence before the
trial court, the trial court has the said powers to alter
the charge from 306 to 302 of IPC. We have also gone
through the post mortem report and the accompaniments to
the charge-sheet. Prima facie, we do not find that any
material document or statement of a witness has not been
filed with the charge-sheet. Even otherwise, Mr.Pol, the
learned PP, on instructions, stated across the Bar that
the Investigating Officer, who is present before the
Court, will record the petitioner’s supplementary
statement and submit the same before the trial court so as
to form part of the charge-sheet, along with all the

¶18

sat 3 wp 1688-2011 relevant material, if any.

¶19

5Hence, there is no case made out to entertain the
present petition and the same is hereby rejected with
liberty to the petitioner as is available in law.

¶20

6If the petitioner visits the concerned police
station within one week from today, the Investigation
Officer shall record his supplementary statement and take
further appropriate steps, as provided under the Cr.P.C.

¶21

(U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)

Navinchandra Umarshi Dedhia v. Inspector of Police, Mantunga Police Station and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navinchandra Umarshi Dedhia v. Inspector of Police, Mantunga Police Station and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Menghraj Gehi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harita Sunil Parab Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sher Bahadur Akram Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Salim Abdul Rajjak Baig Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maruti Nivrutti Navle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinesh Shyamlal Chandnani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.