The High Court summarily dismissed a Criminal Writ Petition seeking a fresh investigation into a murder case and police protection, holding no merit as the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy.
The petition was summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
wp319.12.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 319 OF 2012
(NILKANTH VITHOBA GHODESWAR...VS.. STTAE OF MAH. THR. HOME DEPT. & OTH.)
CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 13, 2012.
A communication was addressed by the petitioner praying therein that the offence which is registered vide Crime No. 19 of 2012 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code be investigated afresh.
According to the petitioner, his fifteen years old son Shubham was murdered by the accused on 23.02.2012. Immediately on the next day the petitioner lodged his report i.e. on 24.07.2012. It further appears that pursuant to the investigation carried out by the police, chargesheet against two accused has already been filed on 23.05.2012 and the learned counsel for the parties state that the case has already been committed to the Court of Session.
The grievance of the petitioner in this communication is :
2 wp319.12.odt
In response to the notice issued to the respondents the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in-reply it is stated that during investigation it was found that there was no material against Sheikh Mehamud Saheb and Smt. Shabbo Mohammad Muzaffar, residents of district Yavatmal and therefore, the said two accused were not arrested. It is, therefore, stated that a chargesheet has been filed against two accused. Since chargesheet has been filed against two accused there is no question of other accused absconding. In respect of the alleged threats, said to have been given by the accused to the petitioner, the respondents in their affidavit in reply at paragraph 8 state that the petitioner has not filed any complaint in the police station regarding the threats given by the accused. As far as police protection is concerned, the petitioner may submit an application in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Police Act if the petitioner apprehends danger to his life.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the affidavit-in-reply we do not find any reason whatsoever for directing fresh investigation or for directing the police to provide protection to the petitioner as the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy of applying for police protection. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present petition. This petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.
Fees payable to Ms. Sonali Saware, learned counsel appointed for the petitioner, is quantified at Rs. One Thousand Five Hundred only.
JUDGE
JUDGE
RRaut.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a fresh investigation into a murder case can be directed afresh by this Court.
Whether police protection can be granted over an alternate remedy.
Nilkanth Vithoba Ghodeswar
State of Maharashtra throughHome Department
P.V.Hardas
M.L.Tahaliyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
