Disposed

Bavtis Catain Fargose v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2012WP/986/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court transferred the investigation of the FIR to an independent officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, directing Respondent No.2 to be excluded. A departmental inquiry was ordered for the Senior Police Inspector's improper conduct in recording facts. Liberty was granted to approach the Court if the investigation remains improper.

What did the court decide?

Direction to hand over investigation to an officer of rank Assistant Commissioner of Police not below; exclusion of Respondent No.2; departmental inquiry ordered against Respondent No.2.

Bavtis Catain Fargose Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

vss

¶2

wp.986.2012.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.986 OF 2012

¶5

Bavtis Catain Fargose ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & ors. .... Respondents

¶8

Mr.H.S.S. Murthy i/b Ms.Pinky Bhansali for the Petitioner Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP, for the Respondent - State

¶9

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

¶10

DATED: 14.8.2012

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Considering the fact that the FIR has been registered by the

¶13

Officer only after the direction issued by the Court and the allegations made against the Senior Police Inspector, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the investigation of the case is entrusted to independent agency to obviate any further allegations about improper handling of the investigation. We, therefore, direct the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case to the officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police and that Respondent No.2 shall not be associated with the investigation of the case in any manner.

¶14

In view of the above, the Petition is disposed of with liberty to

¶15

vss 1 of 2

¶16

wp.986.2012.sxw

¶17

the petitioner to approach this Court in the event it is noticed that the investigation is not being properly handled or is conducted in a manner to favour the accused.

¶18

We place on record the grievance made by the petitioner that the same Senior Police Inspector, Respondent No.2, while registering the FIR has recorded facts which were not stated by the petitioner and to justify recording of that fact, he went on to take counter signature of some other police officer on the said statement. This conduct of the Senior Police Inspector, Respondent No.2, is unacceptable. That will have to be enquired into by way appropriate departmental action to be taken by the concerned authority. We hope and trust that the same will be done in the right earnest and taken to its logical end.

¶19

4. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶20

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

¶21

vss 2 of 2

Bavtis Catain Fargose v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bavtis Catain Fargose 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pintu @ Maruti Dattatray Harihar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Bhauchand Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pintu @ Maruti Dattatray Harihar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ankush Manik Pol Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashishkumar Annasaheb Patil Vs the Superintendent of Prison, Kolhapur Central Prison and Ors.

Ankush Manik Pol Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.