Dismissed

Kavita W/O. Dattatray Bhombe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Nov 2019WP/902/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition seeking direction for re-investigation of assault charges accused due to a boundary dispute regarding agricultural land that this Court dismissed finding no necessity for re-investigation at this stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kavita W/O. Dattatray Bhombe Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

936- Cri. W. P. No. 902-2019.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.902 OF 2019

¶5

Kavita Dattatray Bhombe, Age : 39 Years, Occ. Household and Agril R/o. Devegaon Tq. Pathri District Parbhani … PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Pathri Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani

¶8

Dnyanoba Jijabhau Yewale Age : 62 Years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶9

Shivaji S/o Dnyanoba Yewale, Age : 30 Years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶10

Rajebhau S/o Dnyanoba Yewale, Age : 27 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶11

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 resident of Devegaon Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani. ..RESPONDENTS

¶12

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Khande Avinash A APP for Respondents: Mrs. D.S. Jape Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Subhash Nande & M.B. Sandanshiv

¶13

CORAM :T.V. NALAWADE AND S. M. GAVHANE,JJ. DATE : 21.11.2019.

¶14

ORDER :-

¶15

The petition is fled for giving direction to respondent

¶16

No.1 to re-investigate the matter.

¶17

¶18

936- Cri. W. P. No. 902-2019.odt

¶19

Heard both the sides.

¶20

The crime in C.R. No. 155 of 2018 was registered on the basis of report given by the petitioner in Pathri Police Station, District Parbhani for the ofences punishable under Sections 326,327,323,354,504,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation charge sheet came to be fled for these ofences and also the ofences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The record like the statements show that there is dispute over the boundaries of agricultural lands between the petitioner-informant and the accused persons. According to her the incident in question took place on 26.07.2018 after 4.00 p.m She has made allegations that when she was doing some agricultural operations in the feld, the accused entered the feld and by questioning her as to why they approached police, beating was given to her. The allegations are made that weapon like sickle were used and she was assaulted. Some witnesses rescued her it is allegations that after the assault there was blood on her saree but the said saree was taken away by the accused. The accused took away mobile hand set and also Mangulstura (Necklace) of the informant.

¶22

¶23

936- Cri. W. P. No. 902-2019.odt

¶24

Even if the contents of the FIR has considered as they are, improbability can be seen. She wanted to see that section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is used and that is actually added by the police in the charge sheet. No number of the sim card was given and the number of her mobile hand set was also not given. The report of the investigating ofcer shows that investigation was made on that line. There is report of the investigating ofcer showing that he tried to fnd out the truth into the aforesaid allegations but he noticed that there was nothing of that sort committed by the accused persons in the incident. Civil dispute is going in between the petitioner and accused in respect of boundary dispute. The incident had taken place due to boundary dispute and assault was made on the petitioner. This Court has seen the injury certifcate. All these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object but weapon like sickle is shown to be recovered and one stick is also shown to be recovered. The proceeding is fled to see that more recovery is made. As the charge sheet is fled the Court can ascertain as to whether the investigation is properly made or not made. The grievance is that statement of one witness was not recorded by the police can also be addressed by the trial Court. For that, in view of nature of dispute there is no necessity of giving direction of re-investigation.

¶25

¶26

936- Cri. W. P. No. 902-2019.odt

¶27

Observations are present purpose only. The petition stands

¶28

dismissed.

¶29

(S.M. Gavhane, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶30

YSK/

Kavita W/O. Dattatray Bhombe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kavita W/O. Dattatray Bhombe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afzal S/O. Budhan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shama Hanumant Munde-Jadhavar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manoj S/O. Prakash Lokhande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sham S/O. Rambhau Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin S/O. Manikrao Gadage and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar S/O. Pandurang Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others