Dismissed¶¶34

Vitthal Genuji Dhage and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2025WP/2871/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of investigation to CBI/SIT; change of Investigating Officer; fair, just and proper investigation; impartial investigator; monitoring of investigation; FIR No. 218 of 2025 / FIR No. 0218/2025; Shirur Police Station, Pune Rural; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 sections 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352; CCTV footage; CDR data; apprehension of botched-up investigation; coercive action; final report; writ jurisdiction; writ petition dismissed; Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, decision dated 21 July 2025.

What did the court decide?

An Investigating Officer cannot be changed repeatedly and at the mere askance; an order changing the I.O. can be passed by the Court only in peculiar circumstances and for strong reasons. ¶¶33

Vitthal Genuji Dhage and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the investigation of FIR No. 218 of 2025 (Shirur Police Station) should be transferred to the CBI or another competent investigating agency/SIT, or alternatively entrusted to an impartial investigator with personal monitoring by Respondent No.3, and whether interim protection from filing a final report/coercive action should be granted, given the Petitioners' apprehension of a botched-up investigation after repeated changes of the Investigating Officer.

¶¶32

Court's answer

An Investigating Officer cannot be changed repeatedly and at the mere askance; an order changing the I.O. can be passed by the Court only in peculiar circumstances and for strong reasons.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

On the facts (third I.O. already seized of the investigation and reporting progress; CCTV footage and CDR data collected), no such peculiar circumstances or strong reasons existed to invoke the Court's jurisdiction, and the Writ Petition was therefore dismissed.

¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ.) dismissed a writ petition seeking transfer of the investigation of FIR No. 218 of 2025 (registered 30th March, 2025 at Shirur Police Station, Pune Rural, for offences u/s 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023) to the CBI or another competent agency/SIT, or alternatively to an impartial investigator with monitoring, along with interim restraint on filing a final report or coercive action. The Petitioners relied on three successive changes of Investigating Officer (P. G. Gadkar, Deepak Karande, and presently Shubham Chavan) and an apprehension of a botched-up investigation; the learned APP reported that CCTV footage and CDR data had been collected and the investigation was in progress. Held: an I.O. cannot be changed repeatedly and at the mere askance; such an order lies only in peculiar circumstances and for strong reasons. Finding no such circumstances or reasons, the Court declined to invoke its jurisdiction and dismissed the Writ Petition.

¶1

14 wp 2871-25.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE

¶4

Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.07.24 11:27:17 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2871 OF 2025

¶6

Vitthal Genuji Dhage & Ors. .. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Ajinkya Badar for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Sandeep S. Salunkhe for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

¶11

Mr. Sagar Kursija for the Respondent No.4.

¶12

Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State.

¶13

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶14

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATE: JULY 21, 2025

¶15

P. C.

¶16

We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate on

¶17

behalf of the Petitioners, Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and the learned APP.

¶18

The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d),

which are as under:

Laxmi

1/3

14 wp 2871-25.odt

“(a) This Hon 'ble Court be pleased to take on record and allow present Writ Petition and issue Rule.

¶24

(b) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction transferring the investigation of the offence in FIR No. 218 of 2025 registered with the Shirur Police Station under section u/s 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 to the C.B.I or any other competent investigating agency or the Special investigation team as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

¶25

(c) In the alternative this Hon’ble court may direct the Respondent No.3 to entrust investigation of the subject offence to impartial investigator from his jurisdiction for just, fair and proper investigation with a further direction to the Respondent No.3 to personally monitor the investigation and its progress.

¶26

(d) Pending the final hearing of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the investigating officer, Shirur Police Station/Respondent No.2, in FIR No. 218 of 2025 to not to file any final report in the said crime and not to take any coercive actions again the Petitioners.”

¶27

We are informed that, at the behest of the Petitioners, the investigating officers with reference to the FIR No. 0218/2025, registered on 30^th March, 2025 with the Shirur Police Station, Pune Rural, have been changed on 3 occasions. The 1^st I.O. was Mr. P. G. Gadkar. The 2^nd I.O. was Mr. Deepak Karande and the present I.O. is Mr. Shubham Chavan. These facts are not contradicted by the Petitioners.

Laxmi

2/3

14 wp 2871-25.odt

The learned APP is instructed to say that the CCTV footage as well as the CDR data has been collected and the investigation is still in progress.

¶32

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are satisfied with the statement made by the learned APP. However, their apprehension of a botched up investigation, refuses to recede.

¶33

We find that an I.O. cannot be changed repeatedly and at the mere askance. It is only in peculiar circumstances and for strong reasons, that such an order can be passed by the Court. Be that as it may, the third I.O. has already taken over the investigation and the learned APP submits the progress that he has made.

¶34

In view of the above, we do not find any such circumstances or reasons to invoke our jurisdiction in this case. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶35

[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

¶36

Laxmi

¶37

3/3

Vitthal Genuji Dhage and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Genuji Dhage and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shabnam Saipan Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sagar @ Manish Shailesh Belamkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra vs Ritesh Subhash Gujar and Anr.

Sunny Bhadri Gupta @ Manish Singh @ Fauji vs State of Maharashtra

Rajkumar Pralhad Mane vs State of Maharashtra

Hemang Jadavji Shah vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors.