Ashwajit Anilkumar Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Ashwajit Anilkumar Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim monitoring order: Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Thane, directed to file his personal affidavit in response to the Petitions, after himself perusing the Petition, investigation record and case diary and without delegating powers to any subordinate officer, on or before 27 June 2024; APP directed to communicate the Order expeditiously; Petitions stood over to 28 June 2024 with the Bench reserving detailed comments on the investigation.

¶judg. para 9 (doc ¶38)

Issue for consideration

Whether the Investigating Officer defaulted in recording the supplementary/additional statement of the complainant/victim despite the learned APP's statement of 22 April 2024 that attempts were being made to record it. +3 more

¶judg. para 5 (doc ¶30)

Court's answer

Recorded as an admitted fact that, although the learned APP's statement was noted on 22 April 2024, the supplementary/additional statement of the informant/victim had still not been recorded by the Investigating Officer; observed that the victim in the crime had to plead repeatedly before the Investigating Officer for recording her statement, which shook the Bench's conscience.

¶judg. para 5 (doc ¶30)

Ratio / Principle

Directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Thane, to file his PERSONAL affidavit in response to the Petitions, expecting him first to read the entire Petition and peruse all investigation records and the case diary; further directed that he not delegate his powers to any subordinate officer; affidavit to be filed on or before 27 June 2024.

¶judg. para 6 (doc ¶31)

Key takeaways

Directed the learned APP appearing in these Petitions to communicate the Order to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Thane, expeditiously.ratio¶judg. para 8 (doc ¶37)
Held that the Investigating Officer (A.P.I. Vishal Rumane) is investigating a crime and has not been appointed to file a claim for damages or compensation before the M.A.C.T.; accordingly declined to accept the case-diary recording in which Aadhar Card, Bank Pass Book and other documents were demanded from Respondent No. 2 (the victim) for a purported report to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.obiter¶judg. para 4 (doc ¶28)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Writ Petition No. 712 of 2024 with Crl. W.P. No. 713 of 2024; Gadkari & Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ.; 14 June 2024) — interim order monitoring a criminal investigation handled by A.P.I. Vishal Rumane of Kasarvadawali Police Station. Findings placed on record: (i) the supplementary/additional statement of the complainant/victim (Respondent No. 2 in WP 712) remained unrecorded despite the APP's 22 April 2024 statement, the victim having had to plead repeatedly with the Investigating Officer for recording her statement; (ii) the Investigating Officer, prima facie not conversant with Cr.P.C. provisions, had sought the victim's Aadhar Card, Bank Pass Book and other documents for a purported report to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal — a purpose the Bench rejected, the officer being appointed to investigate the crime and not to file claims for damages or compensation before the M.A.C.T.; (iii) the case diary is kept in loose sheets with no consecutive pagination, in contravention of Section 172 (1-B) of the Cr.P.C., the directions of the Office of the Director General of Police, and the D.G.P.M.S. circular dated 12 February 2024. Disposition: the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Thane, was directed to file his personal affidavit (no delegation permitted) after reading the entire Petition and perusing all investigation records and the case diary, on or before 27 June 2024; the APP was to communicate the order expeditiously; further comments on the investigation were reserved pending that affidavit; matter stood over to 28 June 2024.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Investigating Officer defaulted in recording the supplementary/additional statement of the complainant/victim despite the learned APP's statement of 22 April 2024 that attempts were being made to record it.¶judg. para 5 (doc ¶30)
The court held
Recorded as an admitted fact that, although the learned APP's statement was noted on 22 April 2024, the supplementary/additional statement of the informant/victim had still not been recorded by the Investigating Officer; observed that the victim in the crime had to plead repeatedly before the Investigating Officer for recording her statement, which shook the Bench's conscience.obiter¶judg. para 5 (doc ¶30)
2.
Whether the case diary has been maintained in conformity with Section 172 (1-B) of the Cr.P.C., the directions of the Office of the Director General of Police, and the D.G.P.M.S. circular dated 12 February 2024, given that it is kept in loose sheets without consecutive pagination.¶judg. para 7 (doc ¶33)
The court held
Placed on record that the case diary maintained by the Investigating Officer, A.P.I. Vishal Rumane, is in loose sheets and that there is no consecutive pagination in the case diary.obiter¶judg. para 7 (doc ¶33)
3.
Whether the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Thane, should personally answer for the state of the investigation and case-diary maintenance by filing an affidavit himself, without delegating the task to subordinates.¶judg. para 6 (doc ¶31)
The court held
Directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Thane, to file his PERSONAL affidavit in response to the Petitions, expecting him first to read the entire Petition and peruse all investigation records and the case diary; further directed that he not delegate his powers to any subordinate officer; affidavit to be filed on or before 27 June 2024.ratio¶judg. para 6 (doc ¶31)
4.
Whether the Investigating Officer acted beyond his investigative mandate by requiring the victim's Aadhar Card, Bank Pass Book and other documents purportedly to send a report to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.¶judg. para 4 (doc ¶25)
The court held
Held that the Investigating Officer (A.P.I. Vishal Rumane) is investigating a crime and has not been appointed to file a claim for damages or compensation before the M.A.C.T.; accordingly declined to accept the case-diary recording in which Aadhar Card, Bank Pass Book and other documents were demanded from Respondent No. 2 (the victim) for a purported report to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.obiter¶judg. para 4 (doc ¶28)