Dismissed

Arvind @ Arun Marutirao Ugale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Feb 2019WP/1329/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal writ petition challenging the investigation and arrest proceedings in a case involving cross-FIRs. The petitioner sought transfer of investigation and compensation for alleged illegal detention but the court dismissed the petition finding the claims unsupported by the record.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs for transfer of investigation and compensation for illegal detention were denied; writ petition failed and rule discharged.

Arvind @ Arun Marutirao Ugale Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1329 OF 2018

¶3

Arvind @ Arun Marutirao Ugale,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Ghogargaon, Taluka Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

2. Commissioner of Police, Ahmednagar, Taluka and District Ahmednagar

¶8

3. Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar

¶9

4. Inspector of Police, Shrigonda Police Station, Taluka Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. D.R. Kale, Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.)
for the respondents/State

¶11

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :22nd JANUARY, 2019
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :1st FEBRUARY, 2019

¶12

JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶14

2 criwp1329-2018

¶15

the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned A.P.P., heard finally.

¶16

2.This is a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner herein has prayed
for the following reliefs :-

¶17

(a)Transfer the investigation of F.I.R. being
C.R.No.384 of 2018, registered with Police
Station, Shrigonda for the offences punishable
under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code, to any other Police Station.

¶18

(b)Direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pay the
petitioners Rs.50 lakhs as compensation for his
illegal detention from 3.00 p.m. of 5th August,
2018 to 12.10 a.m. of 6th August, 2018 at Police
Station, Shrigonda.

¶19

(c)Direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to initiate
departmental enquiry against the officers, who
are involved in the illegal detention of the
petitioner, working with respondent No. 4.

¶20

3.Mrs. Rashmi S. Kulkarni, learned counsel

¶21

appearing for the petitioner, made submissions on the

¶22

criwp1329-2018

¶23

¶24

lines of the averments made in the writ petition and the
rejoinder. According to her, transfer of investigation
can be directed by the Constitutional Court to ensure
fair investigation and fair trial. In support of her
submission, she relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dharam Pal Vs.
State of Haryana and others AIR 2016 S.C.618.

¶25

.Turning to the factual matrix of the case,
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on
intervention of bigwigs, respondent No.4 tried to hush
up the matter, initiated by the petitioner by lodging
First Information Report (“FIR”, for short), being
C.R.No.384/2018. According to learned counsel, the

¶26

petitioner had to make number of communications with the
higher-ups so as to ensure the Investigating Officer to
take appropriate steps in investigation of the crime
registered at the behest of the petitioner. Learned
counsel took us through such correspondence made by the
petitioner with the Superintendent of Police,
Ahmednagar. According to learned counsel, the petitioner

¶27

was illegally detained at the Police Station for little

¶28

over nine hours. Statutory mandatory provisions as
regards arrest of an accused have been thrown to the

¶29

criwp1329-2018

¶30

¶31

wind. The Investigating Officer and other officials of
respondent No.4 played mischief. They asked the
petitioner to cuff-up some amount for letting him go
home. The petitioner did not relent. The petitioner was,
therefore, illegally detained and his adversary has been
favoured. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this
petition for the reliefs mentioned hereinabove.

¶32

4.Mr. D.R. Kale, learned A.P.P. would, on the

¶33

other hand, submit that the petitioner cried wolf. The
falsity of the case of the petitioner is exposed when
the Investigating Officer filed his affidavit-in-reply
and produced on record the relevant papers. According
to learned A.P.P., the petition is without substance.
The same be, therefore, dismissed.

¶34

5.There can be no two views over the legal
proposition that the High Court, being a Constitutional

¶35

Court, has every power to direct transfer of

¶36

investigation from one agency to the other so as to
ensure fair investigation and fair trial. The facts of
the case on hand, however, appear to be other way round.

¶37

We are, therefore, not inclined to grant any of the
reliefs the petitioner has prayed for.

¶38

criwp1329-2018

¶39

¶40

6.The petitioner sold his agricultural land to

¶41

one Sachin Gaikwad for a consideration of

¶42

Rs.40,00,000/-. The petitioner claims to have received
only Rs.13,00,000/-. On 4th August, 2018, the petitioner
spotted Shivdas, the brother of Sachin Gaikwad. Shivdas
was in a car. The petitioner claims to have approached

¶43

Shivdas to request him to ask his brother – Sachin
Gaikwad to pay his entire consideration amount. Shivdas
refused. According to the petitioner, Shivdas abused

¶44

him and drove the car with a view to run over the
petitioner. The petitioner jumped so as to save
himself. He fell on the road and suffered injuries.
This was said to be the incident that took place at 5.30
p.m. on 4th August, 2018.

¶45

.Shivdas has other story to tell, as is gathered
from the police papers submitted for our perusal. Based
on the FIR lodged by Shivdas, Crime being C.R.

¶46

No.383/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections
392, 341 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, came to be
registered against the petitioner with Police Station,
Shrigonda. It was registered on 4th August, 2018 itself.
The petitioner was alleged to have intercepted Shivdas,
abused and manhandled him. It was further alleged that

¶47

6 criwp1329-2018

¶48

the petitioner robbed Shivdas of Rs.17,000/- to
Rs.18,000/-.

¶49

7.Admittedly, the petitioner approached Police
Station, Shrigonda on the following day to lodge FIR
against Shivdas and two of his unknown associates. We
do not propose to make observation regarding merits of
the matter. Suffice it to say that had it been a bid on
the life of the petitioner, he would not have spent a
minute here and there to approach the nearest Police
Station. Be that as it may. The facts indicate that
the petitioner and Shivdas Gaikwad lodged cross FIRs
against each other. The tale-tell stories in both
reports are quite different. It, therefore, cannot be
said to be a case of registration of two FIRs pertaining
to one and the same incident.

¶50

8.We have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by
the Investigating Officer. Sachin Gaikwad was arrested
on 25th August, 2018. The vehicle bearing registration
No. MH-16-BR-9666 had also been seized from the custody
of Sachin. On production of Shivdas before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, he was remanded to
judicial custody. The affidavit further records the
statements of eight persons, acquainted with the facts

¶51

7 criwp1329-2018

¶52

and circumstances of the case, have been recorded. CCTV
footage has already been recovered by drawing the
panchanama in that regard. It, therefore, appears to us
that the investigation of C.R. No.384/2018 is in

¶53

progress in the right direction and there is nothing for
us to observe, the investigation being unfair.

¶54

9.The petitioner claims to have had been

¶55

illegally detained at the Police Station from 3.00 p.m.
of 5th August, 2018 to 12.10 a.m. of 6th August, 2018. It

¶56

has been averred in the petition that the officials of
respondent No.4 did not allow the petitioner to move
even to answer call of nature during the said period.
The falsity of the petitioner's claim has been exposed.
The affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 records
that the petitioner was referred to hospital for his

¶57

medical examination. The injury certificate of the
petitioner has been produced on record. The same
indicates that the petitioner was examined at Rural
Hospital at Shrigonda at 7.20 p.m. on 5th August, 2018.

¶58

The affidavit records that the petitioner left the

¶59

Police Station by 7.00 p.m. for his medical examination
and returned with the medical certificate at 11.00 p.m.

¶60

We cannot go into the disputed questions of fact as to

¶61

8 criwp1329-2018

¶62

time and hours the petitioner spent for his medical
examination. The fact remains that the petitioner has
come with a false claim to have been detained at the
Police Station for nine hours and he was even not
allowed to move to answer call of nature during the said
period. True, in affidavit-in-rejoinder, the petitioner
came with some explanation.

¶63

10.According to learned counsel for the

¶64

petitioner, the petitioner was arrested by 12.10 a.m. of
6th August, 2018. While effecting the arrest of the
petitioner, the provisions of Section 41(1) (b) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have not been followed.
We have, therefore, perused the said provisions and
propose to reproduce them below:-

¶65

“41.When police may arrest without warrant.-

¶66

(1)Any police officer may without an order
from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest
any person -

¶67

(a)*****

¶68

(b)against whom a reasonable complaint has
been made, or credible information has been
received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that
he has committed a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may be less than seven years or which may
extend to seven years whether with or without
fine, if the following conditions are
satisfied, namely:-

¶69

criwp1329-2018

¶70

¶71

(i)the police officer has reason to believe
on the basis of such complaint, information, or
suspicion that such person has committed the
said offence;

¶72

(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such
arrest is necessary-

¶73

(a)to prevent such person from committing
any further offecne; or

¶74

(b)for proper investigation of the
offence; or

¶75

(c)to prevent such person from causing
the evidence of the offence to disappear or
tampering with such evidence in any manner; or

¶76

(d) to prevent such person from making any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the police officer; or

¶77

(e)as unless such person is arrested, his
presence in the Court whenever required cannot
be ensured;

¶78

and the police officer shall record while
making such arrest, his reasons in writing:

¶79

[Provided that a police officer shall, in all
cases where the arrest of a person is not
required under the provisions of this sub-
section, record the reasons in writing for not
making the arrest;]

¶80

11.We are not at one with the submissions made by

¶81

the learned counsel for the petitioner. For, the said

¶82

provisions speak of arrest of a person accused of an
offence which is cognizable and punishable with

¶83

criwp1329-2018

¶84

¶85

imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven
years or which may extend to seven years. In this case,
the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian
Penal Code has been registered against the petitioner.

¶86

The said offence is punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and fine. There is also
record to indicate that the petitioner's son was
informed regarding the petitioner's arrest. As such, we
do not find any breach of statutory mandatory provisions
relating to arrest of the petitioner. It is reiterated
that from the affidavit-in-reply and the papers of
investigation of both C.R. No.383/2018 and 384/2018, we
are of the view that the petition is devoid of any
merit.

¶87

12.In the result, the writ petition fails. The

¶88

same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule stands discharged
accordingly.

¶89

npj/criwp1329-2018

Arvind @ Arun Marutirao Ugale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind @ Arun Marutirao Ugale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Sitaram Dhannawat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gulab S/O. Yohan Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Tulshiram Kakade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Sameer Rashid and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd Mohsin Mohd Yasin Vs the Principal Milind College of Science Nagsenavan Aurangabad and Another

Ramratan S/O. Bhaskar Dhongade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others