Dismissed

Vasant Sakharam Kashivale v. Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2011WP/279/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a criminal writ petition where key allegations regarding appropriation of gold by police appeared only in an annexed legal notice and were not asserted in the petition itself. The court declared the petition for want of substance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed without any direction to the respondent or any other relief. Liberty to pursue other appropriate remedy.

Vasant Sakharam Kashivale Vs Superintendent of Police and Ors. — Bombay HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

wp-279.11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 279 OF 2011

¶5

Mr.Vasant Sakharam Kashivale.... Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Superintendent of Police & others.... Respondents.

¶8

Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the petitioner.

¶9

K.V.Saste, APP for the respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM :A.M.KHANWILKAR AND
A.R.JOSHI, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 23rd February 2011.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶14

2.Learned A.P.P., on instruction, states that
charge-sheet has already been filed on 17th December,
2009 in C.R.No.115/2008 and in C.R.No.37/2009. This

¶15

fact is not stated in the writ petition. Besides
this, the grievance made in the petition, even if
taken as it is, it is only one of deficiencies in the

¶16

¶17

wp-279.11

¶18

investigation by the present investigating officer.
The said grievance can be made before the court where
the charge-sheet has already been filed. The said
court can decide whether further investigation needs
to be done or whether the investigation already done
is deficient so as to direct the investigating officer
to take corrective measures. The petitioner is free
to explore that remedy, if so advised. We make it
clear that the said proceeding will be decided on its
own merits in accordance with law. This Court has not
expressed any opinion that the concerned Court shall
be obliged to issue direction to the investigating
officer even if no case is made out by the petitioner
justifying that direction.

¶19

3.During the course of argument, counsel for
the petitioner invited our attention to the contents
of the legal notice sent by Advocate Mrs.Chaya P.
Bhadkamkar which refers to the fact asserted by Shri
Vasant Sakharam Kashivale that during the meeting
between the parties the accused expressed their
inability to return the gold ornaments on the ground
that the same have been appropriated by the police
officers investigating the case. However, this
allegation is not specifically taken in the writ
petition. Even if the said legal notice is annexed to
the petition that fact ought to have been asserted by

¶20

wp-279.11

¶21

the petitioner on affidavit. The petition is
completely silent about the said allegation. In the
circumstances, there is no substance in the writ
petition. The same is disposed with liberty to take
recourse to the other appropriate remedy.

¶22

4.We have also noticed interesting position
from the legal notice (Exh.I). It has been sent by
Advocate Mrs.Chaya P. Bhadkamkar to the Police
Inspector, Assistant Police Inspector, and Police
Nayab of the concerned police station. The
letterhead, however, indicates that the said Advocate
is an Additional Public Prosecutor and Government
Pleader. We have brought this position to the notice
of the Public Prosecutor who has assured us to convey
the same to the Secretary, Law Department so that the
said aspect will be inquired into and proceeded in
accordance with law.

Vasant Sakharam Kashivale v. Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant Sakharam Kashivale v. Superintendent of Police and Ors.

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

Rajaram Shobha Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Meddisonsy System India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shambhulal Morarji Gori Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Rambriksh Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sadashiv Mahadev Tambe Vs the Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Laheri a. Bhanushali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.