This Criminal Writ Petition sought a direction for further investigation and a house search to recover alleged missing stridhan and cash. The Division Bench dismissed the petition, holding that the investigation was complete and the claim of non-recovery was a matter for trial.
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.
1 WP 1165-18.doc-909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1165 OF 2018
Daxa Agarwal. ] … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra. ] … Respondent
Ms. Tahera Qureshi Advocate appointed through High Court Legal Aid, present. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for State.
PSI Ashwinikumar Kagale attached to Santacruz Police Station, present.
CORAM :- R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE :- 27 APRIL, 2018
P. C. :-
against the investigating agency to conduct a further investigation in the form of house search for recovery of 'Stridhan' and cash in presence of the complainant i.e. the Petitioner along with the police force / protection at 101, Navyug Market, Gaziabad - 201001, UP, which was the matrimonial house of the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner is the first informant who has registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
1 of 4
URS
2 WP 1165-18.doc-909
URS
2 of 4
3 WP 1165-18.doc-909
Division Bench of this Court by observing that in the facts of the case, it would be proper to allow the investigating agency to submit the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. At a prior point in time when the accused had applied for the anticipatory bail, the investigating agency, it seems, had made a statement that the investigation is in progress and recoveries are to be made. The Petitioner had also applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the concerned authority. The Petitioner received a reply that since the investigation is on, the information sought could not be granted to the Petitioner in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act. It is having regard to the extent of the recovery made by the investigating agency, as also relying upon the statement which was made on behalf of the investigating agency during the ABA proceedings that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner endeavoured to urge that further investigation is necessary. Insofar as the aspects which are sought to be highlighted i.e. the difference between the recovery and the value of the articles as claimed by the Petitioner, we are of the view that the same would be a matter of trial and it would not be appropriate for us to express any opinion in that regard at this stage. Having gone through the necessary material, we are of the view that the URS 3 of 4
4 WP 1165-18.doc-909
investigation could not be said to be carried out in such a manner so as to warrant further investigation. It is required to be borne in mind that the FIR was registered in the year 2016, the charge-sheet has been filed in the year 2017. The substantive relief sought by the Petitioner which we have adverted to in the earlier part of this order, would, therefore, have to be considered in the said context also. If so considered, we are of the view that the request of the Petitioner cannot be acceded to. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
4 of 4
URS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the investigation can be impugned to warrant a further search and/or investigation at the marital home.
Whether the assertion of innocent丢了 of the accused necessitates further investigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Daxa Agarwal
State of Maharashtra
R. M. Savant
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
