Disposed

Rajesh Tulaji Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2018WP/94/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking transfer of investigation and addition of IPC sections. The court directed the investigating officer to consider annexed medical reports before deciding on further charges.

What did the court decide?

Order to investigate officer to consider medical reports and decide on adding further sections of IPC.

Rajesh Tulaji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2018)

921 wp 94.2018

1/3

Dusane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.94 OF 2018

¶6

Rajesh Tulaji Shinde & Anr. .... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Subodh Desai a/w Ms. Nikita Vardhan i/by Kanga & Co. for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. A.S. Pai, Additional P.P. for the State-Respondent.

¶12

Coram : R.M. Savant AND Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ Date : 25^th April, 2018

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1 Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.

¶15

2 The above petition has been filed for myriad prayers

¶16

which are appearing in paragraph 29 of the petition amongst the

¶17

prayers is a direction sought to transfer the investigation in

¶18

respect of C.R. No.336 of 2017 to another agency, to initiate an

¶19

enquiry against the Respondent no.2, Police Officer and a

¶20

Dusane 2/3 921 wp 94.2018

¶21

direction to add Sections 142, 340, 351, 359, 307, 323, 324, 363, 441, 158, 506(2), 509, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code to the case.

¶22

3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. Desai drew our attention to the medical reports of the Petitioners as also the other injured of the Sir H.N. Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Girgaon, Mumbai. In so far as the report relating to Gangaram Tukaram Kamble is concerned, the same discloses that he has suffered Cervical spine C7 spinous process fracture, alleged history of assault. In so far as the Petitioner no.1, Rajesh Tulaji Shinde is concerned, the medical report is to the following effect- “sutured scalp laceration noted”. It seems that the said injured were also taken to the Government Hospital namely St. George Hospital. However, in so far as Gangaram Tukaram Kamble is concerned, the X-ray of his spine was not taken but only X-ray of his skull and chest was taken.

921 wp 94.2018

Dusane

3/3

4 In our view, having regard to the medical reports

¶27

which are annexed to the petition and since the Petitioners are seeking the addition of further sections of the Indian Penal Code in so far as the accused are concerned and since the investigation is yet in progress, we direct the investigating officer to consider the medical reports that are produced by the Petitioners and which are annexed to the above petition and thereafter take an appropriate decision as regards applying the additional provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that the investigating officer has now changed the need to consider the prayer clause (b), which have been adverted to in the earlier part of this order is obviated.

¶28

5 With the directions as aforesaid, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶29

(Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) (R.M. Savant, J.)

Rajesh Tulaji Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Tulaji Shinde 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

Bharat Amarchand Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Majid Saghir Vs Aasiya Shaikh and Anr.

Sachin Ishwara Bandgar and Ors. Vs Deepika Sachin Bandgar and Anr.

Hussain Akbarali Virji and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gautam Saraf Son of Kishan Lal Saraf and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Ajay Rajman Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.