Dismissed

Shrimati Sangita Ramesh Bahadurkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2015WP/2568/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking transfer of investigation of a criminal case registered at Khardi Police Station where the deceased died of liver complications. The court held that the investigation was complete, with a charge-sheet ready, and allegations of dowry demand were raised belatedly without prior basis.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Petitioner may approach trial court under Section 216 or 319 CrPC.

Shrimati Sangita Ramesh Bahadurkar Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp-2568/15.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2568 OF 2015

¶4

Sangita Ramesh Bahadurkar. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Debajyoti Talukdar for the Petitioner. Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, learned APP for the State.

¶6

Coram : RANJIT MORE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. Date : September 15, 2015 .

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

¶9

and learned APP for the State. By this petition, the Petitioner is seeking transfer of investigation of CR.No.116 of 2015 registered with Khadak Police Station, Pune to any other Investigating Agency.

¶10

Mr. Talukdar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner's husband and father of the deceased–Amruta expired in February 2015 and soon thereafter husband of deceased-Amruta and relatives of the husband of deceased-Amruta started causing cruelty to Amruta

1 / 5

patilsr

wp-2568/15.

on account of dowry demands. He submitted that they were harassing Amruta by making demands for transfer of flat and shop occupied by the Petitioner. He submitted that despite statements given to that effect by Aniket, the brother of deceased Amruta, the police have not registered offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶15

Mrs. Kantharia, learned APP for the State submitted that marriage of Amruta was solemnised with Vinod in the year 2006, incident in question is dated 14^th April 2015. On the basis of information given by Vinod - the husband of Amruta, FIR / CR No. 116 of 2015 was initially registered for the offence punishable under sections 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and subsequently after the death of Amruta, the provisions of sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have also been added. She submitted that investigation has been carried out in proper manner and there is no need to transfer the investigation.

¶16

From the record produced before us by the police, through learned APP, we find that statements of Armuta, the

2 / 5

patilsr

wp-2568/15.

Petitioner as well as Aniket were recorded on 16^th April 2015 itself. In these statements, there is no allegation about the dowry demands. Amruta expired on 15^th August 2015. The medical papers produced before us show that Amruta died of complications following liver disease.

¶21

The Petitioner (mother of Amruta) and Aniket (brother of Amruta), for the first time after the death of Amruta made allegations about the dowry demands. The contention of the Petitioner in this regard is that though the unlawful demands for dowry were there, but after the death of her husband (i.e., father of Armuta) in the month of February 2015, dowry demands of Amruta's husband and his relatives became more severe. We are not impressed by this submission. No allegation in this regard was ever made either by Amruta or Aniket or the Petitioner herself till the death of Amruta. Perusal of the FIR and the earlier statements of the Petitioner and Aniket as well as the statement made by Amruta do not disclose any allegation with regard to demands for dowry. Be that as it may, as submitted by learned APP for the State, the investigation in the case is

3 / 5

patilsr

wp-2568/15.

complete and charge-sheet is ready.

¶26

In these facts and circumstances, we find that there is no lacuna in the investigation and hence there is no need to transfer the investigation to any other agency. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated.

¶27

That apart, once the charge-sheet is filed the Petitioner can approach the trial Court under section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for alternation in the charge on the ground that proper provisions are not applied. Besides, the Petitioner may seek to add any other person as accused in the said trial, invoking the provisions of section 319 of the Code. 8. Needless to state that observations made hereinabove are for the limited purpose of finding out whether case for transfer of investigation has been made out. If the additional material is brought before the trial Court by the Petitioner, the same shall be dealt with independently by the trial Court without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶28

[R. G. KETKAR, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

4 / 5

patilsr

wp-2568/15.

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original

¶33

signed Judgment / Order.

¶34

5 / 5

¶35

patilsr

Shrimati Sangita Ramesh Bahadurkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrimati Sangita Ramesh Bahadurkar 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

Ram Bahadur Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinesh Kumar S/O. Krishnagaopal Soni and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Sudhakar Singatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ratansinh Parvatsinh Devada Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Shah @ Raja Chandrashekhar Khara @ Raja Vs Director General of Police and Ors.

Ratansinh Parvatsinh Devada Vs the State of Maharashtra