Dismissed

Gayabai W/O. Dashrath Ratnaparkhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Feb 2022WP/51/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two criminal writ petitions seeking habeas corpus and transfer of investigation regarding a missing person. Finding that the investigating agency filed a final report stating the missing person could not be traced despite best efforts and no evidence was found against accused, the court denied relief and dismissed both petitions, leaving petitioners to pursue remedies in the

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions for habeas corpus and transfer of investigation are disposed of; relief denied as missing person not traced and no evidence found against accused.

Gayabai W/O. Dashrath Ratnaparkhe Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

{1}

cwp1426-17

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1426 OF 2017

¶6

Kalpana w/o Kachru Ratnaparkhe, Age : 29 years, Occ.: Household, R/o: Math pimpalgaon, Tq.: Ambad, Dist: Jalna.

¶7

.. PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Jalna, Tq.: & District: Jalna.

¶11

The Police Inspector Ambad Police Station, Tal.: Ambad, Dist: Jalna.

¶12

Gayabai w/o Dashrath Ratnaparkhi.. DELETED

¶13

Chaya Santosh Ratnaparkhe .. DELETED

¶14

Mr. S. G. Jadhavar, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for Respondents No. 1 to 3

¶15

WITH

¶16

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2019

¶17

Gayabai w/o Dashrath Ratnaparkhe, Age : 66 yrs, Occu. Retd ; R/o. Math Pimpalgaon, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.

.. PETITIONER

cwp1426-17

{2}

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra, Through The Special Inspector General of Police, Aurangabad.

¶23

The Superintendent of Police, Jalna.

¶24

The Police Inspector, Ambad Police Station, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. .. RESPONDENTS

¶25

Mr. R. C. Bora, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, APP for Respondents No. 1 to 3

¶26

[CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶27

DATE : 17^th FEBRUARY, 2022

¶28

ORAL ORDER (PER : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) :

¶29

One Kachru Dashrath Ratnaparkhe went missing

¶30

on 6^th June, 2017. Kalpana wife of Kachru lodged a missing report on 9^th June, 2017 with Ambad Police Station, District – Jalna, which is registered as Missing Report No. 12 of 2017. As Kachru was not traced, Kalpana filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1426 of 2017 seeking a writ of habeas corpus for production of

¶31

{3}

¶32

cwp1426-17

¶33

Kachru – her husband.

¶34

On 10^th October, 2017, Gayabai, wife of Dashrath Ratnaparkhe, mother of Kachru lodged a report with Ambad Police Station raising a suspicion that her daughter in law Kalpana and Parmeshwar Jige, Baburao Jige, Rameshwar Jige, Lankabai Parmeshwar Jige, Chayabai Rameshwar Jige and Kalpana Kachru Ratnaparkhe, have kidnapped Kachru and must have killed him.

¶35

On the basis of the said report lodged by Gayabai, Crime No. 196 of 2017 was registered with Ambad Police station for the offence punishable under section 364 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, on the basis of confessional statements of some of the accused, sections 302, 201, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (2) (5) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act were added in CR No. 196 of 2017.

¶36

{4}

¶37

cwp1426-17

¶38

Gayabai, mother of Kachru, filed Criminal Writ

¶39

Petition No. 51 of 2019 seeking transfer of the investigation of Ambad Police Station Crime No. 196 of 2017 to CID and for direction to arrest the accused persons.

¶40

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has submitted that “A” summary report has been filed by the investigating agency under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 196 of 2017 in Sessions Court, Ambad, on 26^th June, 2021 . The report has been produced before us.

¶41

We have perused the said report. Steps taken in the investigation are disclosed in the report. It is stated in the report that after conducting thorough investigation, in spite of best possible efforts on the part of the investigating agency, missing person Kachru could not be traced. No cogent evidence is found against the accused persons. Therefore, by continuing

¶42

{5}

¶43

cwp1426-17

¶44

the investigation, “A” final report / summary is filed. The note at the bottom of the report states that at

¶45

present no sufficient evidence is found against the accused persons and during the investigation of the crime, if sufficient evidence is found, the investigating agency has kept the option of filing separate charge sheet, open.

¶46

As per Rule 219 of the Bombay Police Manual, 1959, “A” final report can be filed in the cases which are found true, but are undetected. In the facts of the present case, though the accused is known, but since there is no evidence to justify they being sent up to the Magistrate for trial, “A” final report has been submitted.

¶47

In view of the submission of “A” final report before the competent court, since missing person Kachru could not be traced in spite of best possible efforts taken by the investigating agency, no relief can be granted in habeas corpus petition.

¶48

{6}

¶49

cwp1426-17

¶50

So far as Criminal Writ Petition No. 51 of 2019 is

¶51

concerned, since “A” final report is submitted by the investigating agency in the court of Sessions Judge, Ambad, the petitioner can oppose the same by filing protest petition and agitate her grievance before the Sessions Court.

¶52

Taking into consideration the above aspects, both the criminal writ petitions No. 1426 of 2018 and 51 of 2019 are disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to pursue the remedy available in law. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶53

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

Gayabai W/O. Dashrath Ratnaparkhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayabai W/O. Dashrath Ratnaparkhe 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mestra A.G. Switzerland through Special Poa Holder Mrs. Smita Lokesh Bhartiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Narayan Atmaram Kashid and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Narayan Atmaram Kashid and Others Vs Devendra Singh and Others

Vikas Vikram Jogdand Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Federation of Shendra D.M.I.C. Industries and Agriculture Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sk. Shakil Sk. Chotu and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others