Disposed

Dr. Alankar Khanvilkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2011WP/2872/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Criminal Writ Petition. It held that petitions raising grievances about deficient investigation or the need for fresh inquiry when a charge-sheet is already filed should be directed towards the concerned Court, not addressed via an independent agency by the High Court. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of directing the petitioner to pursue remedy before the concerned Court. No independent agency appointed.

Dr. Alankar Khanvilkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

2872.10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2872 OF 2010

¶4

Dr.Alankar Khanvilkar

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.E.A.Sasi for Petitioner.

¶10

Ms.S.V.Gajare, A.P.P. for State.

¶11

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

¶12

DATED:- JANUARY 6, 2011.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

This Petition is filed by the original complainant. The relief claimed

¶15

in this Petition, amongst others, is to issue direction to further investigate the offence through independent agency. However, in the Petition as filed, the principal grievance is in respect of deficiency in the investigation done

¶16

so far. The fact that charge-sheet has already been filed in connection with the said F.I.R. as back as on 23^rd April, 2008 is not in dispute. Even though the concerned Court has taken cognizance of the offence, it is always open

¶17

to the Investigating Officer to undertake further investigation if the

¶18

2872.10

¶19

¶20

situation so warrants, in exercise of powers under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.’).

¶21

The grievance regarding need to undertake further investigation or to take corrective measures with regard to investigation already done on the basis of which police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. has already been filed in the concerned Court, are matters which can be addressed by the concerned Court where the charge-sheet is pending for trial. It will be open to the Petitioner to approach the said Court and bring on record the various circumstances which according to the Petitioner either have been glossed over by the Investigating Officer including non recording of statements of concerned witnesses or for that matter need to further investigate the issue already investigated by the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer has relied on the opinion submitted by the Panel of Doctors which was formed to ascertain whether there was negligence of the medical Officers. The said opinion will have to be reconsidered and if necessary, appoint another Panel of Doctors. Even that aspect may be brought to the notice of the concerned

¶23

2872.10

¶24

¶25

Court who in turn would examine the grievance of the Petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law and issue appropriate directions as may be warranted in the fact situation of the case.

¶26

We express no opinion with regard to any of the grievance made by the Petitioner in the present Petition. Suffice it to observe that the grievance of the Petitioner can be redressed by the concerned Court where the chargesheet is filed. If the said Court is satisfied that further investigation of the case would be necessary in the light of the issues raised by the Petitioner, there would be no need to assign the further investigation to any independent agency. Further, the allegations to which our attention is invited in Paragraph 28, does not commend to us. That is not enough to persuade us to direct transfer of investigation to some other agency.

¶27

As aforesaid, the Petitioner would be free to pursue his remedy before the concerned Court, being complainant and if such application is filed, we hope and trust that the concerned Court would decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. All questions in that behalf are left open. Only if the further investigation were not to be in accord with the direction of the concerned Court, the grievance of the Petitioner to appoint

¶28

2872.10

¶29

¶30

independent investigating agency may require consideration; if sufficient ground to do so is made out.

¶31

Petition is accordingly disposed of on the above terms.

¶32

(A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Dr. Alankar Khanvilkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Alankar Khanvilkar v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Navin Raju Shettiyar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dwarkanath Sobnath Mishra Vs Dhirubhai Maneklal Mehta and Ors.

Smt.Naz Asif Patel Vs P.K.Kotkar and Ors.

Shaikh Mohammad Issak Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shobha Devidas Tambe Vs the Hon'Ble Deputy Secretary, Home Ministry, State of Maharashtra

Pramodkumar Yadunath Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra