Disposed

Raghunath S/O Maroti Devkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2016WP/112/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police to investigate within four weeks whether a death was homicidal despite no vehicle damage, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Superintendent of Police to investigate the grievance within four weeks after summoning investigation papers.

Raghunath S/O Maroti Devkar Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

{1}

¶2

12 sr. no. crwp 112.16.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. 112 OF 2016

¶5

Raghunath Maroti Devkar ...PETITIONER

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. L. S. Shaikh, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S. R. Yadav, AAP for Respondent State

¶10

. . .

¶11

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2016.

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents.

¶15

2] We have carefully perused the application filed by the applicant on 9.11.2015 before the API, Police Station, Ahmednagar. It appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that, though the investigation is conducted in the direction that son of the petitioner met accident and died, however, there is no damage to the vehicle.

¶16

3] The petitioner suspects that his son has not died due to accident but his death is homicidal. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met in case the respondent No.2 is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, however, within a period of 4 weeks from today, after summoning the investigation papers from the concerned Investigation Officer and after satisfying himself, the Superintendent of Police either direct further

¶17

12 sr. no. crwp 112.16.odt

¶18

{2}

¶19

investigation or otherwise.

¶20

4] We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. However, we hope and expect that the Superintendent of Police will take final decision within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We make it clear that in case the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation of the respondents, petitioner has a remedy to apply before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for further investigation.

¶21

5] With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order. It will be open for the respondent No.2 to consider this petition itself as a representation of the petitioner.

¶22

[K.K.SONAWANE] JUDGE

¶23

[S.S. SHINDE] JUDGE

¶24

grt/-

Raghunath S/O Maroti Devkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath S/O Maroti Devkar 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

AaSHABAI W/O Gangadhar Darade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bhalchandra Ambaji Patil and Another

Ganpat S/O Namdeo Parkale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahadeo S/O Vyankatrao Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Pralhad Dhole and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kishan S/O Dadarao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra